djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 23:11:22 GMT -5
i am reading more about him now. he is a wanted fugitive. the guy he (may have) murdered was a US citizen. but i guess that is all cool with Paul and the right wing nutbutter machine. he is just the spokesperson they want against ObamaCare. whew. i would not even take a picture of this guy- bragging about his wild sex life and drug use- he sounds like Charlie Sheen. but older. Worse- there was a lot of crazy shit going on at his place- the article had pictures of one of his girlfriends/teenager- that was going to kill him at one point, he hired some lady to work in a 'lab' in his house, other madness. I doubt PBP looked into it- it was a calculation: Well known company allegedly shits on the healthcare act- good enough for the front page the GOP has fallen for this shyster hook, line and sinker. he is an "expert" at FOX. he is an "expert" in their newly renovated "let's kill ObamaCare" crusade. but he is probably the least reputable person they could possibly call as a witness. if i am exaggerating, it is not by much.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 22, 2013 23:17:16 GMT -5
Priceless: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce wanted to speak with John McAfee, the technology pioneer who last year fled a murder investigation in Belize, as part of their investigation into the flawed ObamaCare website Sean Hayes, who serves as counsel for the committee, apparently reached out to Francois Garcia, an attorney for McAfee last week. "Given the failures of Healthcare.gov, and Mr. McAfee's expertise, I was hoping he might be able to discuss his views with staff on the hill," Hayes wrote, thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/329853-report-gop-asked-tech-legend-murder-suspect-john-mcafee-to-testify-on-obamacare-websiteBecause when credibility counts I repeat my earlier point- 2017 is the year any state can obtain a waiver from Obamacare. All they have to do is show that they have a system that will meet all of the coverage and cost requirements. Single payer states will breeze through this- I would love to see a republican plan that would do it (but there isn't one except for Obamacare- so replacing Obamacare with state level Obamacare isn't going to cut it) So no way out folks. May I suggest secession from the union
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 22, 2013 23:34:36 GMT -5
the fact that they seem to want to play this card again is amazing. it reminds me of a compulsive gambler, who, having just gambled away his kid's college fund, is now intent on gambling away his house.
waiting for sanity to take hold in the GOP. but in the meantime, the stupid is breathtaking.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 1:15:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 6:40:12 GMT -5
EVT1--Just checking, since nobody seems to want to answer my question.... Are you ok with the massive additions to the deficit that Obamacare is on the verge of causing? So far, Angel is the only one who has given a thoughtful answer. All other Obamacare supporters avoid my question like the plague.
Current CBO projections magically show Obamacare having a net zero impact on the deficit, but they point out that is with mandated, artificially low annual cost inflation adjustments. So we have a choice under the current law. Rationing or significant deficits. Which one do you choose?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2013 6:57:54 GMT -5
Pumpkinist2013- if the Second Amendment was to prevent standing armies, then it certainly isn't an Amendment to create a standing domestic army (militia / national guard) kind of outfit, right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 1:15:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 8:44:48 GMT -5
dem--Thanks for the thoughtful response.
A couple of points. You say we leave 40MM people uninsured. The latest projection is that ACA will leave 30MM people uninsured. This doesn't seem like a great success. Also, it's not really the revenue streams but the expenditure streams that are both uncertain and believed to be mandated to be lower than what is physically possible without denying care or reducing subsidies.
I agree that taxes can always be raised. And as long as they are raised on everyone, then I guess that's fine. But in our political climate, all we are allowed to do is raise taxes on those who are rich or perceived to be rich. I think that's partly why we wound up with the stupid medical devices tax.
Anyway, it sounds like we both dislike ACA, although our preferred solutions probably differ. What I would really like is for someone who LIKES Obamacare to answer my question. Honestly, I think the silence speaks volumes.
(Note: You said you would prefer a single-payer system. Although I'm sure you and I would want it structured differently, I'm not necessarily opposed to single-payer as long as it is well thought out and designed to solve a specific problem. Something that Obamacare simply did not bother doing.)
Yeah, but I think you'll agree that the type of adjusting that is most likely is to allow costs to grow faster than currently mandated, which is what will cause the $100B/yr deficits in the first place....
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 23, 2013 9:13:13 GMT -5
Pumpkinist2013- if the Second Amendment was to prevent standing armies, then it certainly isn't an Amendment to create a standing domestic army (militia / national guard) kind of outfit, right? A standing army creates a group of individuals who are paid to be full time soldiers "over there", apart from us. A militia/national guard creates a group of individuals who are "here" with us and, when necessary for training or actual combat, are paid and "over there". The former is a threat to the security of a free state. The later is necessary for its security.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 1:15:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 9:32:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure it's a step forward. It's definitely not a small step. It is a major re-work of the system without sufficient regard for problem solving, predicting and preventing unintended consequenses, etc. Personally, I think that if lawmakers were willing to work together, they could identify actual problems and real solutions to them. Solving one problem at a time rather than trying to overhaul the whole thing at once. And this would, overall, make Americans much more supportive of their government, which you'd think would be what they'd want.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2013 9:35:21 GMT -5
Pumpkinist2013- if the Second Amendment was to prevent standing armies, then it certainly isn't an Amendment to create a standing domestic army (militia / national guard) kind of outfit, right? A standing army creates a group of individuals who are paid to be full time soldiers "over there", apart from us. A militia/national guard creates a group of individuals who are "here" with us and, when necessary for training or actual combat, are paid and "over there". The former is a threat to the security of a free state. The later is necessary for its security. Um, no. Not according to US history, and the Constitution itself. Our founders were greatly concerned with things like soldiers being quartered in our houses, and government tyranny. The bill of rights was in direct response to the colonist's concerns that the Constitution would create an all-powerful federal government- like the Monarchy they just threw off. The Bill of Rights does NOTHING to establish federal government anything- the Bill of Rights is ALL there in order to clarify, carve out, expressly state that those rights are preserved for INDIVIDUALS and the STATES. The Constitution provides for a military, prohibits a domestic military, and the bill of rights is there for the individuals and the states ONLY. Well regulated does NOT refer to anything like the perverted "regulated" we think of today when we think of our current out of control, unConstitutional, and completely illegitimate federal government today. The Constitution doesn't provide for the regulation of guns AT ALL. In fact, it doesn't even provide for states to issue "licenses" or "permits". The Second Amendment is every American's carry permit. Period. It is the clearest of all the Amendments- and may be the most clear, straightforward, and unable to be adulterated of item in the whole document. Which is why it causes the left so much consternation.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2013 9:42:23 GMT -5
The US will NEVER have a single payer system. You're right this giant bastard of a bill was designed to be a step backwards into tyranny and socialism which has failed everywhere it has ever been tried- but it'll never happen. It'll never happen in large part because the total collapse of ObamaCare has removed any credibility the government, and especially the Democrats have ever had on healthcare. The dream is over. It's dead now. And mind you- the complete non-functionality of the $.6 billion website is just the beginning. Nothing else behind the website is working, either. The bill is the worst piece of legislation ever crafted- it was poorly thought out- so poorly in fact that a Constitutional challenge to ANY of it will strike ALL of it because it doesn't even contain the most basic item of all- a severability clause. It's a tax bill now- and as has been mentioned, fails the origination clause test. TO DATE there is not ONE person that can explain it, knows how it works, or can successfully explain to Americans and/or their employers, and other entities how to be in compliance with the bill. No, my friends- ObamaCare is dead- and while I'm realistic about the fact that Democrats are never going to be held accountable, or implode with it- I do know this: we're going from this back to free market healthcare, and it will be politically untenable to ever attempt anything remotely like this ever again- let alone single payer, one-size-fits-all, government-run healthcare from Washington, D.C. DC is out, the people are in.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 23, 2013 9:48:40 GMT -5
... The Constitution provides for a military, prohibits a domestic military, and the bill of rights is there for the individuals and the states ONLY. Well regulated does NOT refer to anything like the perverted "regulated" we think of today when we think of our current out of control, unConstitutional, and completely illegitimate federal government today. ... www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html I read were it does call for a Navy (since one can not quickly create a fleet) but it indicates a provision to raise, not have, Armies. Don't see where it "prohibits a domestic military. As far as "well regulated militia", the Constitution does address that: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Interesting that it calls for the government to do the "arming" of the militia.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 23, 2013 9:54:03 GMT -5
... The Second Amendment ... is the clearest of all the Amendments- and may be the most clear, straightforward, and unable to be adulterated of item in the whole document. Which is why it causes the left so much consternation. Amendment II
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Perfectly clear, straightforward, and unable to be adulterated. And they could have written that, but they didn't. This is what they wrote: 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. Why the first part if they meant only the second part?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2013 9:59:58 GMT -5
Not a single Alaskan has signed up for ObamaCare...
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 23, 2013 10:07:31 GMT -5
If you are able body you are part of the militia. not unless you receive training, and are on call if needed. that is what Jefferson had in mind, anyway. Sheesh. And now you want to wonder what Jefferson would think of things. If we had the incredible hot tub time machine today and brought him back to present day, he would be taking the leaders (and the President) of both political parties of Congress and challenging them to a duel on the colonnade in front of the Washington Memorial for heresy and crimes against the Constitution.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 23, 2013 10:11:40 GMT -5
not unless you receive training, and are on call if needed. that is what Jefferson had in mind, anyway. Sheesh. And now you want to wonder what Jefferson would think of things. If we had the incredible hot tub time machine today and brought him back to present day, he would be taking the leaders (and the President) of both political parties of Congress and challenging them to a duel on the colonnade in front of the Washington Memorial for heresy and crimes against the Constitution. Not sure what Tommy had in mind but I do know what the Constitution states concerning militias. I quoted it in Reply #106 above.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 10:39:40 GMT -5
not unless you receive training, and are on call if needed. that is what Jefferson had in mind, anyway. Sheesh. And now you want to wonder what Jefferson would think of things. no, i am pretty sure i know. he would be utterly disgusted by how things are.If we had the incredible hot tub time machine today and brought him back to present day, he would be taking the leaders (and the President) of both political parties of Congress and challenging them to a duel on the colonnade in front of the Washington Memorial for heresy and crimes against the Constitution. horsefeathers. Jefferson believed above all things that matters such as these should be solved by legal means.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Oct 23, 2013 10:42:40 GMT -5
Sheesh. And now you want to wonder what Jefferson would think of things. If we had the incredible hot tub time machine today and brought him back to present day, he would be taking the leaders (and the President) of both political parties of Congress and challenging them to a duel on the colonnade in front of the Washington Memorial for heresy and crimes against the Constitution. Not sure what Tommy had in mind but I do know what the Constitution states concerning militias. I quoted it in Reply #106 above. Yes, I know. I was responding to dj's wondering what Jefferson was thinking on this one issue. My thought was what would Jefferson think of every other area of the Constitution that has been bastarditized over the years by Congress sine the 1800's Since we have outlawed duels, I think he would be trying to get the Tea Party together at Boston Harbor for a reunion performance, and call out the local militas.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 10:44:34 GMT -5
Pumpkinist2013- if the Second Amendment was to prevent standing armies, then it certainly isn't an Amendment to create a standing domestic army (militia / national guard) kind of outfit, right? A standing army creates a group of individuals who are paid to be full time soldiers "over there", apart from us. A militia/national guard creates a group of individuals who are "here" with us and, when necessary for training or actual combat, are paid and "over there". The former is a threat to the security of a free state. The later is necessary for its security. spot on.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 10:46:10 GMT -5
Not sure what Tommy had in mind but I do know what the Constitution states concerning militias. I quoted it in Reply #106 above. Yes, I know. I was responding to dj's wondering what Jefferson was thinking on this one issue. My thought was what would Jefferson think of every other area of the Constitution that has been bastarditized over the years by Congress sine the 1800's he would be appalled with that as well. he would be disgusted with the idea of perpetual corporations with the rights of living men. he would be disgusted at the consolidation of capital into the hands of very few of those corporations. the list goes on and on.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 10:48:51 GMT -5
A standing army creates a group of individuals who are paid to be full time soldiers "over there", apart from us. A militia/national guard creates a group of individuals who are "here" with us and, when necessary for training or actual combat, are paid and "over there". The former is a threat to the security of a free state. The later is necessary for its security. Um, no. Not according to US history, and the Constitution itself. Our founders were greatly concerned with things like soldiers being quartered in our houses, and government tyranny. The bill of rights was in direct response to the colonist's concerns that the Constitution would create an all-powerful federal government- like the Monarchy they just threw off. The Bill of Rights does NOTHING to establish federal government anything- the Bill of Rights is ALL there in order to clarify, carve out, expressly state that those rights are preserved for INDIVIDUALS and the STATES. The Constitution provides for a military, prohibits a domestic military, and the bill of rights is there for the individuals and the states ONLY. Well regulated does NOT refer to anything like the perverted "regulated" we think of today when we think of our current out of control, unConstitutional, and completely illegitimate federal government today. The Constitution doesn't provide for the regulation of guns AT ALL. it doesn't really provide for gun ownership, either, except for militia purposes. there is a definite tension there, that you are choosing to resolve in one way, and that i and others resolve in another.In fact, it doesn't even provide for states to issue "licenses" or "permits". The Second Amendment is every American's carry permit. Period. It is the clearest of all the Amendments- and may be the most clear, straightforward, and unable to be adulterated of item in the whole document. Which is why it causes the left so much consternation. it is NOT clear in terms of the intended use of those weapons, at all.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 10:50:19 GMT -5
... The Constitution provides for a military, prohibits a domestic military, and the bill of rights is there for the individuals and the states ONLY. Well regulated does NOT refer to anything like the perverted "regulated" we think of today when we think of our current out of control, unConstitutional, and completely illegitimate federal government today. ... www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html I read were it does call for a Navy (since one can not quickly create a fleet) but it indicates a provision to raise, not have, Armies. Don't see where it "prohibits a domestic military. As far as "well regulated militia", the Constitution does address that: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Interesting that it calls for the government to do the "arming" of the militia. if anyone wants to know how this is SUPPOSED to work, look at Switzerland.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,814
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 23, 2013 12:01:18 GMT -5
Not a single Alaskan has signed up for ObamaCare... It costs nothing to register to look at the website. It costs low income folks money (they may need to use elsewhere) to secure the supporting documentation to prove you are a citizen.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2013 12:15:23 GMT -5
Not a single Alaskan has signed up for ObamaCare... It costs nothing to register to look at the website. It costs low income folks money (they may need to use elsewhere) to secure the supporting documentation to prove you are a citizen. It costs low income people a LOT of money to be cut from full time to part time so their employer can comply with ObamaCare It costs low income people money to be fired, or not to be able to find a job at all. It costs low income people money when the government squanders $17 trillion dollars- $6.5 trillion of it just under Obama with another $6.2 trillion to be added in the next ten years as a result of JUST ObamaCare. This monstrosity is dead. It's only a matter of how the collapse of ObamaCare is managed- and what kind of shape healthcare delivery in America will be in when the dust settles? Right now, we have a gang of political hacks lying to us, and destroying healthcare- and you're more concerned about the burden on people of obtaining government-issued photo ID? Your priorities are out of whack.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 12:17:20 GMT -5
here is McAffee with one of his (10) 17-year old girlfriends. now granted, he is probably an expert at this point on drug use and running a brothel, but i am not so sure how that qualifies him to even comment on ObamaCare:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 12:20:58 GMT -5
It costs low income people money when the government squanders $17 trillion dollars- $6.5 trillion of it just under Obama with another $6.2 trillion to be added in the next ten years as a result of JUST ObamaCare..is that a DMT induced statistic, or do you have anything to back that speculation up? note: the claim here is that the ACA will cost more than the entire defense budget over the next decade. does that seem rational?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,814
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 23, 2013 12:29:47 GMT -5
It costs nothing to register to look at the website. It costs low income folks money (they may need to use elsewhere) to secure the supporting documentation to prove you are a citizen. It costs low income people a LOT of money to be cut from full time to part time so their employer can comply with ObamaCare It costs low income people money to be fired, or not to be able to find a job at all. It costs low income people money when the government squanders $17 trillion dollars- $6.5 trillion of it just under Obama with another $6.2 trillion to be added in the next ten years as a result of JUST ObamaCare. This monstrosity is dead. It's only a matter of how the collapse of ObamaCare is managed- and what kind of shape healthcare delivery in America will be in when the dust settles? Right now, we have a gang of political hacks lying to us, and destroying healthcare- and you're more concerned about the burden on people of obtaining government-issued photo ID? Your priorities are out of whack. But we are talking about registering to 'look' at what ìs available (which costs nothing).
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2013 12:37:26 GMT -5
Full.Blown.Meltdown.
The whole thing is illegal...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 23, 2013 12:41:41 GMT -5
It costs low income people a LOT of money to be cut from full time to part time so their employer can comply with ObamaCare It costs low income people money to be fired, or not to be able to find a job at all. It costs low income people money when the government squanders $17 trillion dollars- $6.5 trillion of it just under Obama with another $6.2 trillion to be added in the next ten years as a result of JUST ObamaCare. This monstrosity is dead. It's only a matter of how the collapse of ObamaCare is managed- and what kind of shape healthcare delivery in America will be in when the dust settles? Right now, we have a gang of political hacks lying to us, and destroying healthcare- and you're more concerned about the burden on people of obtaining government-issued photo ID? Your priorities are out of whack. But we are talking about registering to 'look' at what ìs available (which costs nothing). Low income people do not have time to look at a website that doesn't work so they can buy a product they are mandated by law to purchase, but cannot because the website doesn't work, or face a penalty.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,814
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 23, 2013 12:59:00 GMT -5
But we are talking about registering to 'look' at what ìs available (which costs nothing). Low income people do not have time to look at a website that doesn't work so they can buy a product they are mandated by law to purchase, but cannot because the website doesn't work, or face a penalty. Again. It costs nothing to register.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,047
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Oct 23, 2013 13:20:55 GMT -5
dem--Thanks for the thoughtful response. A couple of points. You say we leave 40MM people uninsured. The latest projection is that ACA will leave 30MM people uninsured. This doesn't seem like a great success. Also, it's not really the revenue streams but the expenditure streams that are both uncertain and believed to be mandated to be lower than what is physically possible without denying care or reducing subsidies. I agree that taxes can always be raised. And as long as they are raised on everyone, then I guess that's fine. But in our political climate, all we are allowed to do is raise taxes on those who are rich or perceived to be rich. I think that's partly why we wound up with the stupid medical devices tax. Anyway, it sounds like we both dislike ACA, although our preferred solutions probably differ. What I would really like is for someone who LIKES Obamacare to answer my question. Honestly, I think the silence speaks volumes. (Note: You said you would prefer a single-payer system. Although I'm sure you and I would want it structured differently, I'm not necessarily opposed to single-payer as long as it is well thought out and designed to solve a specific problem. Something that Obamacare simply did not bother doing.) Yeah, but I think you'll agree that the type of adjusting that is most likely is to allow costs to grow faster than currently mandated, which is what will cause the $100B/yr deficits in the first place.... I don't think that anyone on this site really LIKES Obamacare, rather that a lot of us think it is preferable to the old system where some people are uninsurable and cannot afford care for chronic conditions. I would prefer a single payer system, but I prefer the ACA to what we had. I would like to see some cuts in other areas such as all the military installations that we support around the world. And the removal of restrictions on Americans buying medication from foreign pharmacies. That in itself would do a lot to address prescription prices in the USA. However I agree there should also be a tax increase to pay for this and to help balance the budget. That tax increase would need to affect all Americans and not just the wealthy. I would also like to see the corporate tax rate reduced but remove the loopholes that allow the transferring of profits out of the country tax free.
|
|