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 15:12:40 GMT -5
You cannot, in any actual substantive way, "prefer the ACA. The ObamaCare system isn't substantively preferable to anything- because it doesn't actually exist. That's a pretty important point- let it sink in. There is no ObamaCare 'system', because it wasn't ready for prime time, and doesn't actually exist to compare to anything else. Point two- let's talk about chronic conditions, or the problem (which is real) of "pre-existing condition" in the "old system" and how ObamaCare changes it. As it turns out, there's no magical political wand that can fix a fundamental problem- www.tampabay.com/news/health/pre-existing-health-condition-insurance-premium-too-expensive-for-many/1119922Insurers have to issue coverage, but people with pre-existing conditions cannot afford the premiums effectively excluding the very people the law was meant to help. Military and foreign policy, while separate issues, would also be better addressed by leadership more amenable to strict constructionism, free-markets, and smaller government. Americans buying drugs in other countries subsidized by Americans doesn't make any sense, and could again be better addressed by small-government, free market types. Some Americans being allowed to do an end run around a system that relies on US government subsidies, raw compulsion, and force isn't sustainable. Ultimately, you have to fix the problems that make US pharmaceuticals cheaper in other countries. We need a simple, flatter, fairer, and more transparent tax policy- no special carvouts, no behavior modification- just you live here, you pay taxes tax code. This would end the problem of the 47% who currently have $0 tax liability, and probably bring down tax rates on top earners to where both would meet somewhere in the middle and pay the same rate with moderate progressivity to account for truly low income earners- like www.fairtax.org proposes. Takes care of your loophole problem, and brings more people into the taxpaying fold- mission accomplished. It would also abolish the problem businesses face in paying to re-patriate dollars-- why should there be a penalty to bring money back to the US and spend it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 15:37:52 GMT -5
the "fair tax" is a non-starter, Paul. a flat tax might. most income over $100k is taxed pretty flat already.
|
|
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 15:39:51 GMT -5
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,055
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Oct 23, 2013 15:40:20 GMT -5
You cannot, in any actual substantive way, "prefer the ACA. The ObamaCare system isn't substantively preferable to anything- because it doesn't actually exist. That's a pretty important point- let it sink in. There is no ObamaCare 'system', because it wasn't ready for prime time, and doesn't actually exist to compare to anything else. Point two- let's talk about chronic conditions, or the problem (which is real) of "pre-existing condition" in the "old system" and how ObamaCare changes it. As it turns out, there's no magical political wand that can fix a fundamental problem- www.tampabay.com/news/health/pre-existing-health-condition-insurance-premium-too-expensive-for-many/1119922Insurers have to issue coverage, but people with pre-existing conditions cannot afford the premiums effectively excluding the very people the law was meant to help. The new medical plans will become effective on Jan 1, 2014. Just because the website is a craptastic failure doesn't nullify the existence of the plans that can be purchased by people with pre-existing conditions. They will have to sign up over the phone or through a broker, but at least they will be able to buy coverage that isn't available to them now. The article you linked is citing premiums in 2013, prior to the roll-out of the new health plans and subsidies. I agree that in some cases people will still find insurance unaffordable, particularly in states that rejected the Medicaid expansion. Others that will find it unaffordable are people whose family coverage from their employer is extremely high. Hopefully some adjustments can be made to the law to close those gaps in affordability.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Oct 23, 2013 15:48:38 GMT -5
here's a Doctor's take on it online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303448104579149642030106938?mod=trending_now_1Patients who can't afford concierge medicine but have seen their doctor take that route are out of luck: They have been added to the swelling rolls of patients taken care of by the shrinking pool of physicians. So even people with "private" insurance have found that the quality of their health care declined. Nowadays, many are forced instead to see a nurse or other health-care provider. The traditional doctor-patient relationship is now reserved primarily for those who can pay extra. Some physicians now refuse even to take patients over 50 years old, not wanting to be burdened with them when they reach Medicare age. Seniors aren't happy.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,055
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Oct 23, 2013 15:50:46 GMT -5
Military and foreign policy, while separate issues, would also be better addressed by leadership more amenable to strict constructionism, free-markets, and smaller government. Americans buying drugs in other countries subsidized by Americans doesn't make any sense, and could again be better addressed by small-government, free market types. Some Americans being allowed to do an end run around a system that relies on US government subsidies, raw compulsion, and force isn't sustainable. Ultimately, you have to fix the problems that make US pharmaceuticals cheaper in other countries. Can you elaborate on why it doesn't make any sense to lift the restriction on Americans buying prescription drugs from any pharmacy they want? You stated that it doesn't make any sense, but I don't see any reason that I shouldn't buy something from a Canadian or German pharmacy as long as I have a legal prescription for it. Why wouldn't that be considered a small government, free market solution?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 16:10:55 GMT -5
who cares? i care more about how this might be used politically. this could be very good for the GOP, don't you think?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 16:13:58 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:54:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 16:19:44 GMT -5
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.i thought i followed the corporate world fairly well i know of some conglomerates that LEAVE their profits overseas so as to avoid paying taxes twice on the same profits but i dont know of a single US corporation that SENDS profits overseas to avoid taxes if products are built and sold in overseas markets, the US tax code doubly taxes companies to repatriate those monies that is what i think you are referring to? yes? or please explain if i have inferred incorrectly.......
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 23, 2013 16:21:02 GMT -5
You cannot, in any actual substantive way, "prefer the ACA. The ObamaCare system isn't substantively preferable to anything- because it doesn't actually exist. That's a pretty important point- let it sink in. There is no ObamaCare 'system', because it wasn't ready for prime time, and doesn't actually exist to compare to anything else. I don't understand how you keep saying this and believing this. The only thing not fully working is the federal website. My state's website is workng fine as are many other states. Those needing to register via the federal exchange still have many other options if they find they aren't able to do so on the site. Not to mention that people still have 4 months to sign up. The thing isn't dead, the sign up process is just screwy for some. The insurance is still there. Old article regarding the temporary plans that were setup for those with pre-existing conditions. Those people will now be in the exchanges and buying insurance at the exact same prices as everyone else. So no one is priced out due to conditions. Ok, this is one of the stupider things I think I have seen you say. Only ~15% pay no federal taxes. That same 15% will pay no federal taxes under fairtax. Fairtax will not change those that have no tax liability, so if that is the reason you want it, then you should rethink the whole program. The 47% pay no INCOME tax. Fairtax replaces all federal taxes, including FICA. Therefore for an adequate comparison you need to look at those that pay no INCOME, FICA, or EXCISE taxes today, which is around 15%.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 23, 2013 16:23:53 GMT -5
here's a Doctor's take on it online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303448104579149642030106938?mod=trending_now_1Patients who can't afford concierge medicine but have seen their doctor take that route are out of luck: They have been added to the swelling rolls of patients taken care of by the shrinking pool of physicians. So even people with "private" insurance have found that the quality of their health care declined. Nowadays, many are forced instead to see a nurse or other health-care provider. The traditional doctor-patient relationship is now reserved primarily for those who can pay extra. Some physicians now refuse even to take patients over 50 years old, not wanting to be burdened with them when they reach Medicare age. Seniors aren't happy. Workpublic, some doctors have been refusing to take Medicare patients for the last 25 years, at least. That number has been growing right along. It's nothing new.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 23, 2013 16:27:37 GMT -5
The speed of the collapse of ObamaCare is mind-blowing. I am a firm believer the law will implode upon itself- and I can't even keep up. So, here are the big three from today and yesterday: 1. Contractors who are being blamed for the website failure are pointing fingers at the White House claiming that as little as a month prior to the launch of healthcare.gov , changes were ordered to prevent users from comparing prices in order to conceal the fact that ObamaCare has resulted in massive premium increases. www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-web-site-contractors-allegedly-told-to-hide-info-from-shoppersDo you read the articles you post or just the headlines? This says that prices weren't available until you actually registered, which is true. That doesn't hide prices, just merely makes you register to see the prices. Not a tactic I particularly like, but no different than say needing to add an item to your cart to see the price, which many sites do. Again, did you read the article? Or are you just hoping no one else does. This directly addresses your complaint in #1. They added a feature so you can browse without registering. The only problem is that they only have you input very broad information, so you only get estimates back. Kind of stupid, but not really what I would consider a deception either - just shortcut, lazy programming. When you actual register, you input all your info and get the correct pricing. How is this different than what already went through the supreme court? Can you explain.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 16:43:10 GMT -5
The speed of the collapse of ObamaCare is mind-blowing. I am a firm believer the law will implode upon itself- and I can't even keep up. So, here are the big three from today and yesterday: 1. Contractors who are being blamed for the website failure are pointing fingers at the White House claiming that as little as a month prior to the launch of healthcare.gov , changes were ordered to prevent users from comparing prices in order to conceal the fact that ObamaCare has resulted in massive premium increases. www.examiner.com/article/obamacare-web-site-contractors-allegedly-told-to-hide-info-from-shoppersDo you read the articles you post or just the headlines? you really need to ask that, after the 6 point font McAfee endorsement?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 23, 2013 16:49:17 GMT -5
Do you read the articles you post or just the headlines? you really need to ask that, after the 6 point font McAfee endorsement? It is just odd to me that PBP is so focused on a single issue at a time and so biased in how he processes articles and data. Everything he reads indicates to him that Obamacare is dead. Ummm...the website isn't working. That is like saying the IRS would cease to exist if people couldn't file returns directly via their freefile website in January. The IRS isn't a website, neither is the ACA and returns (enrollments) aren't due for 4 months. Just weird logic, IMO.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 17:14:39 GMT -5
you really need to ask that, after the 6 point font McAfee endorsement? It is just odd to me that PBP is so focused on a single issue at a time and so biased in how he processes articles and data. Everything he reads indicates to him that Obamacare is dead. Ummm...the website isn't working. That is like saying the IRS would cease to exist if people couldn't file returns directly via their freefile website in January. The IRS isn't a website, neither is the ACA and returns (enrollments) aren't due for 4 months. Just weird logic, IMO. i tried last week to delay my ticket with the Alameda Court. the website was down (it is, regularly). does that mean that the Alameda Court is no longer there, or that i don't need to pay my ticket? i think not. is this good for ObamaCare PR? no, it isn't. does it have one stitch to do with it's mortality? no, it doesn't.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 23, 2013 17:19:27 GMT -5
A used car salesman develops a line of patter to accomplish his purpose. The line of patter is always pretty much the same, just nuanced to allow for the vagaries of the particular pile of junk he's hawking at the moment. The same is true of political "pundits" who are trying to sell their bill of goods to those who might not just jump at the chance to swallow it all right down. After awhile, you realize it's all the same message: Buy this!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,835
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 23, 2013 17:33:02 GMT -5
Once the coverage begins January 1, 2014 there is no going back. The horse called ACA will have left the barn.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 17:56:10 GMT -5
Once the coverage begins January 1, 2014 there is no going back. The horse called ACA will have left the barn. there will be no gameplaying until the 2nd half of Jan, so it is a done deal.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 23, 2013 17:56:16 GMT -5
Once the coverage begins January 1, 2014 there is no going back. The horse called ACA will have left the barn. Even now it would be hard to go back. Everyone is operating as though this is happening. People are expecting their subsidized insurance to be available. Some companies are dropping insurance knowing that their workers will still be able to pick it up elsewhere. A lot of people would be angry (and kind of screwed) if this thing was pulled now.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,835
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 23, 2013 18:01:51 GMT -5
Done deal DJ and Angel.
Let the few posters continue with their sky is falling posts (McAfee, voter ID identification vs. confirm identity to simply register to enter ACA website, etc.). It's not going to kill the ACA.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:54:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 18:02:04 GMT -5
Once the coverage begins January 1, 2014 there is no going back. The horse called ACA will have left the barn. Even now it would be hard to go back. Everyone is operating as though this is happening. People are expecting their subsidized insurance to be available. Some companies are dropping insurance knowing that their workers will still be able to pick it up elsewhere. A lot of people would be angry (and kind of screwed) if this thing was pulled now. umm... it IS happening.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Oct 23, 2013 18:48:27 GMT -5
"I don't understand how you keep saying this and believing this."
Axis II disorder?
Seriously, the only melt down I've seen here is Mr Peanut Butter Pompoms.
Silly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,471
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 23, 2013 19:35:08 GMT -5
it was pretty much over BEFORE Obama got re-elected. on Jan 1, it will be totally over.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,055
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Oct 23, 2013 19:44:49 GMT -5
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.i thought i followed the corporate world fairly well i know of some conglomerates that LEAVE their profits overseas so as to avoid paying taxes twice on the same profits but i dont know of a single US corporation that SENDS profits overseas to avoid taxes if products are built and sold in overseas markets, the US tax code doubly taxes companies to repatriate those monies that is what i think you are referring to? yes? or please explain if i have inferred incorrectly....... Some companies legitimately earn profits overseas and that is fine. However a lot of US based companies use creative accounting to assign their expenses to the US and their revenues to a low tax country. For example they will assign their intellectual property to Bermuda and then pay huge royalties to their subsidiary in Bermuda, which are subtracted out of their US profits and results in large profits in Bermuda, even though the bulk of their actual revenue is produced in the US and the majority of their employees are based in the US. Here are a couple of reports about the practice. taxfoundation.org/blog/crs-tax-rates-do-matter-profit-shiftingwww.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42927.pdfIf we lowered the overall corporate tax rate and prevented the profit shifting, that would simplify things and reduce the disadvantage for the companies that aren't shifting profits out of the country.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 23, 2013 20:39:12 GMT -5
You cannot, in any actual substantive way, "prefer the ACA. The ObamaCare system isn't substantively preferable to anything- because it doesn't actually exist. That's a pretty important point- let it sink in. There is no ObamaCare 'system', because it wasn't ready for prime time, and doesn't actually exist to compare to anything else. Point two- let's talk about chronic conditions, or the problem (which is real) of "pre-existing condition" in the "old system" and how ObamaCare changes it. As it turns out, there's no magical political wand that can fix a fundamental problem- www.tampabay.com/news/health/pre-existing-health-condition-insurance-premium-too-expensive-for-many/1119922Insurers have to issue coverage, but people with pre-existing conditions cannot afford the premiums effectively excluding the very people the law was meant to help. Still repeating that obvious bullshit I see....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 28, 2024 20:54:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 20:51:51 GMT -5
EVT, welcome. Ready to respond to my question about Obamacare deficits? How do you justify them? And what do you think of the medical device tax which is a net financial drain out of healthcare?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 23, 2013 23:36:42 GMT -5
All I see are ifs and maybes- but if it leads to large deficits then we find a way to pay for it- we do not ration care.
I don't think the device tax is that big of deal- just another way to shuffle money around- it's not a drain- that tax money will be spent right back in the health care system through the subsidies. What it really does is raise the cost of premiums a little to offset.
I will say one thing about medical devices- these companies really have people by the balls- I deal with some medical equipment- and they will sell you a couple rivets for the price a box of 100 costs- at least some of them will. A part they make- bend over. It's like marine parts- take any run of the mill auto part or hardware and sell it for a marine application and the price doubles. If it is a medical application it goes 10X. Doubt any of those companies are hurting- it's a great time for any company in the medical field- and whether they like it or not- the law should actually increase their business.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 6:59:15 GMT -5
Once the coverage begins January 1, 2014 there is no going back. The horse called ACA will have left the barn. Even now it would be hard to go back. Everyone is operating as though this is happening. People are expecting their subsidized insurance to be available. Some companies are dropping insurance knowing that their workers will still be able to pick it up elsewhere. A lot of people would be angry (and kind of screwed) if this thing was pulled now. It's always easier to unwind a horrible mistake EARLY rather than allow pride and arrogance to hinder you from doing what's right. That's where we are now with Obama and the Democrats- they just have to admit that this ill-conceived, hastily written, fraudulently sold, train wreck of a law now simply must be repealed and replaced with something workable. There's ALWAYS going back. We got rid of slavery and Jim Crow laws- we'll get rid of the ACA.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 7:04:20 GMT -5
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 7:08:51 GMT -5
Even now it would be hard to go back. Everyone is operating as though this is happening. People are expecting their subsidized insurance to be available. Some companies are dropping insurance knowing that their workers will still be able to pick it up elsewhere. A lot of people would be angry (and kind of screwed) if this thing was pulled now. It's always easier to unwind a horrible mistake EARLY rather than allow pride and arrogance to hinder you from doing what's right. That's where we are now with Obama and the Democrats- they just have to admit that this ill-conceived, hastily written, fraudulently sold, train wreck of a law now simply must be repealed and replaced with something workable. OK, what would you replace it with? You had a whole thread on the issue and never gave an answer? What solves the same issues as the ACA, but is your preferred solution? I've never been against a better solution. I have just never seen one offered.
|
|