Tax credits...and it's an assumption--that the penalties will now test--that all those people can't buy health insurance. That doesn't follow just because they don't now have it. Penalties have a way of changing priorities--an incentive, as the economists would say.
Doctor visit limits...what else...
- Thread starter billc
- Start date
Tax credits...and it's an assumption--that the penalties will now test--that all those people can't buy health insurance. That doesn't follow just because they don't now have it. Penalties have a way of changing priorities--an incentive, as the economists would say.
We've tried those approaches. People won't plan for retirement, and pensions are increasingly rare. It's one thing to say "I don't care if old people starve" but experience shows that when middle-aged kids have to start buying food for their parents, everyone starts to change their mind. If you don't mandate savings, and find a way to address disabled who can never work, it isn't tenable. Ditto Medicare--the cost of medical products has increased too rapidly compared to other price measures to figure they'll borrow from their kids for an MRI.
Your plan is theoretical. It doesn't survive contact with reality. Find a country practicing it that has an average life expectancy over 60.
The truth is even simpler than that: Obamacare doesn't go into effect until 2014, and there are price controls built in that will be strengthened. You're judging it 2 years before any but a few provisions have taken effect. And BTW...health care premiums have increased at a lower rate the past two years. That's an improvement.
Unlike the [FILL IN THE BLANK] administration.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Well, if you CAN afford it and just CHOOSE NOT TO, then you AREN'T one of the aforementioned 17,000 who are dying because they can't afford it...
So again, the mandate does nothing for them...
Look it's pretty simple, I think a ten year old can understand it: Either you can't afford health insurance, and mandating you buy it is a useless gesture that doesn't actually do dick since you still can't afford it, Or you CAN afford it but choose not to, in which case are not actually one of these Poor People who can't afford it this is supposed to be helping anyhow.
I don't see why that's so hard to comprehend.
They claimed that starting Aug 1st birth control would be included, free. Funny how that hasn't kicked in yet.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/08/i-tried-to-claim-my-free-birth-control.html
Or just how many exclusions are in there.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fact-checking-free-birth-control-day/story?id=16900144
On the exchanges, NY claims to be on track to meet the 2014 deadline. Of course, this is a State that's less on time than the airlines during a storm.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/08/i-tried-to-claim-my-free-birth-control.html
Or just how many exclusions are in there.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fact-checking-free-birth-control-day/story?id=16900144
On the exchanges, NY claims to be on track to meet the 2014 deadline. Of course, this is a State that's less on time than the airlines during a storm.
So what you're saying is that it's the governments, not peoples, responsibility to be responsible for their future.
You do realize that if we did this to education, you'd have to give A's to kids who didn't study right?
If you don't mandate people exercise, they won't.
If you don't mandate people eat healthy, they wont.
etc.
As to life expectancy, once you hit 30 it should be time to Run!
WC_lun
Senior Master
So what you're saying is that it's the governments, not peoples, responsibility to be responsible for their future.
You do realize that if we did this to education, you'd have to give A's to kids who didn't study right?
If you don't mandate people exercise, they won't.
If you don't mandate people eat healthy, they wont.
etc.
As to life expectancy, once you hit 30 it should be time to Run!
So who is responsible when the future brings things like catstrophic illness that no one can really afford? What if it is something that has been a life long issue so the person cannot get insurance...at least until next year? It isn't the people who can but don't prepare that some sort of safety net needs to be in place for. Private charities just do not fill that role.
Fair question.
The argumentative debator in me holds the line that it's wrong to 'mandate' me into taking care of you. That you are responsible for you. Exceptions to this should be rare and minimal.
The compassionate person I am says ideally we will all step up and do what's right.
The realist says that's BS.
So, I don't have an answer here. Sorry.
WC_lun
Senior Master
At least you are honest
Thing is, YOU are not taking care of ME. You pay your taxes to take care of everyone who NEEDS it, including your friends, family, or your self if needed. Same as the taxes and most other people pay..
I prefer the pre-1913 tax code though where we kept 100% of our earnings and did with them as we wished.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
At least you are honest
The problem with that model is that we keep giving up more and more and more and more and more and more... I posted my earnings vs taxation breakdown earlier this year here on MT... I keep less than half of what I make once all the Federal, State, Local, Sales, Utility taxes passed onto the consumers and misc "fees" (like municipal parking stickers which are just a tax on owning a car) are factored in.
At what point do we all have no more motivation to waste our lives taking care of everyone else? And when no one wants to do it, where does the money come from, and who will even provide the services? Why should I work to make sure the hospital systems are functional, just so my wages can be taken to pay for the people using those systems? And when people like me aren't there, what benefit is the "free" healthcare if there is no infrastructure to use it, because we all decide why the **** should we work, when everyone else will do that for us?
And you can say that this is a far-fetched example, but I'll tell you... our Hospital just got bought out by another one, and there is a good chance of us all being laid off, and the general consensus amongst our entire department is "**** it, we get an 11 month vacation, on the Government." None of us are in a hurry to get back out there again. I'm ready to sit on my *** eating free food and collecting a paycheck to watch Honey Boo Boo.
WC_lun
Senior Master
Cryzombie, taxes are at thier lowest rates since the 1950's so you are not spending more and more and more. Bob, infrastructure cost money. Prior to 1913 there weren't many maintained roads in the US. Should we go back to horses because we don't want to pay for the roads for our automobiles? Goods and services would skyrocket in cost then.
I don't understand why this is a difficult concept. Those taxes spent to help people from falling through the cracks helps yourselves as well. It isn't "them" your taxes are going to help, but yourselves if you find yourselves in a situation that you need help. If you think that being in a position where you need help could never happen to you, you are niave. All it takes is one accident or illness, even if you are well employed and have great insurance. As the system is now, you would still pay even if no tax dollars went to help those people because as a society we are all connected through the minimum of our shared economy. The "F you I got mine mentality" is just not part of reality anymore. Our society is too interconnected and inter-dependant in today's world.
I don't understand why this is a difficult concept. Those taxes spent to help people from falling through the cracks helps yourselves as well. It isn't "them" your taxes are going to help, but yourselves if you find yourselves in a situation that you need help. If you think that being in a position where you need help could never happen to you, you are niave. All it takes is one accident or illness, even if you are well employed and have great insurance. As the system is now, you would still pay even if no tax dollars went to help those people because as a society we are all connected through the minimum of our shared economy. The "F you I got mine mentality" is just not part of reality anymore. Our society is too interconnected and inter-dependant in today's world.
I'm ok with going back to horses.
How about this though, since maintaining infrastructure such as roads IS a Constitutional requirement, but paying people to plow fields under ISNT, we simply drop all the things the government does that's not in the Constitution. 80% savings, and we can drop income tax entirely then. This includes medicare, social security, subsidizing doctor visits, and paying 10,000% over cost for drugs.
I've seen the detailed "if we cut this unauthorized bs we save a crap load of coin" idea in detail, but on a quick glance I can't find it (ie quick google and look at first page). It's out there and was associated with one of the indy candidates from the 08 election I think. Got bounced around on here a bit so might be in an old thread.
Old age, or just general tiredness though, keeps me from really caring to 'debate'. To be honest, if they'd cut the bs out of the budgets, actually keep costs down, and make sure most of the taxes go towards keeping the country safe, strong and healthy, I'd be fine with it all. If a few bucks a week helps kids get safe educations, I'm cool with it. $2,000 hammers, not so much. Arni and I argued alot about this way back when, and I still act cranky out of hobbit. But he's right, people ain't gonna prepare and having 100,000,000 seniors wandering around broke would just be wrong on so many levels. So, while I'll argue the Constitutionality of things, sometimes they are things I'm ok with, at least in principle, if not implementation.
pax.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Here's the deal:
If I'm taxed on 10 things at a rate of 20%
Or if I'm taxed on 50 things at a rate of 16%...
I'm NOT paying less in taxes, even if the RATE is lower.
WC_lun
Senior Master
So you are saying you have new taxes to pay that most others don't? What would those be, if you don't mind me asking?
It isn't.
But the "can't afford it" is self-reported. Let's see what happens, eh? I can't afford to pay my taxes either unless they make me. (Hint: That's why they're taken right out of your paycheck.)
No. I'm saying people demanded this. They saw it as a solution to a problem. Soc. Sec. and Medicare/Medicaid passed with huge bipartisan majorities. It was something the people desired. There's a name for that type of govt., dude.
How many post-1913 services have you taken advantage of?
The Interstate highway system, the R&D that funded any number of discoveries, social services, the benefits of a military that could win World Wars, the down-to-earth benefits of the space program, ...
