Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Somebody Explain Obamacare

LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 1:09:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

http://obamacarefacts.com...

I think it is in short, a subsidization on certain aspect of private medical insurance...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 1:43:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Some of the provisions sound good. But others, like the Obamacare Employer Mandate, need to be done away with.
Overall, there is both some good and some bad in the act.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 1:44:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

The first thing you need to know about ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act) is that, as of 2014, you either need to keep your current plan, obtain health insurance (called minimum essential coverage), get an exemption, or pay a fee for each month you go without coverage.

The requirement to have insurance is known as the Individual Mandate.

One of the key parts of " ObamaCare" is the individual mandate. Originally purposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, the individual mandate requires that all eligible Americans have at least basic health coverage.

Individual mandate requires that most Americans obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty. The individual mandate went into effect January 1st, 2014. The penalty will be applied to your year-end federal modified adjusted gross income for each month you don't have health insurance or an exemption.

What counts as minimum essential coverage?

Minimum essential coverage includes the following:
"Employer-sponsored coverage, including self-insured plans, COBRA coverage and retiree coverage
"Coverage purchased in the individual market, including a qualified health plan offered by the Health Insurance Marketplace
"Medicare Part A coverage and Medicare Advantage plans
"Most Medicaid coverage
"Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage
"Certain types of veterans health coverage administered by the Veterans Administration
"Most types of TRICARE coverage under chapter 55 of title 10 of the United States Code
"Coverage provided to Peace Corps volunteers
"Coverage under the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefit Program
"Refugee Medical Assistance supported by the Administration for Children and Families
"Self-funded health coverage offered to students by universities for plan or policy years that begin on or before Dec. 31, 2014 (for later plan or policy years, sponsors of these programs may apply to HHS to be recognized as minimum essential coverage)
"State high risk pools for plan or policy years that begin on or before Dec. 31, 2014 (for later plan or policy years, sponsors of these program may apply to HHS to be recognized as minimum essential coverage)
"Other coverage recognized by the Secretary of HHS as minimum essential coverage

What counts as minimum essential coverage?

Minimum essential coverage includes the following:
"Employer-sponsored coverage, including self-insured plans, COBRA coverage and retiree coverage
"Coverage purchased in the individual market, including a qualified health plan offered by the Health Insurance Marketplace
"Medicare Part A coverage and Medicare Advantage plans
"Most Medicaid coverage
"Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage
"Certain types of veterans health coverage administered by the Veterans Administration
"Most types of TRICARE coverage under chapter 55 of title 10 of the United States Code
"Coverage provided to Peace Corps volunteers
"Coverage under the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefit Program
"Refugee Medical Assistance supported by the Administration for Children and Families
"Self-funded health coverage offered to students by universities for plan or policy years that begin on or before Dec. 31, 2014 (for later plan or policy years, sponsors of these programs may apply to HHS to be recognized as minimum essential coverage)
"State high risk pools for plan or policy years that begin on or before Dec. 31, 2014 (for later plan or policy years, sponsors of these program may apply to HHS to be recognized as minimum essential coverage)
"Other coverage recognized by the Secretary of HHS as minimum essential coverage

What do I need to do if I want to be sure I have minimum essential coverage or an exemption for 2014?

The vast majority of coverage that people have today counts as minimum essential coverage. For those who do not have coverage, who anticipate discontinuing the coverage they have currently, or who want to explore whether more affordable options are available, the Health Insurance Marketplace is open in every state and the District of Columbia. The Marketplace helps individuals compare available coverage options, assess their eligibility for financial assistance and find minimum essential coverage that fits their budget.

For those seeking an exemption from the individual responsibility provision, the Marketplace is able to provide certificates of exemption for many of the exemption categories. HHS has issued final regulations on how the Health Insurance Marketplace grants these exemptions. Individuals will also be able to claim certain exemptions for 2014 when they file their federal income tax returns in 2015. Individuals who are not required to file a federal income tax return because their gross income falls below the return filing threshold do not need to take any further action to secure an exemption.

2014 Federal Tax Filing Requirement Thresholds

Filing Status Age Must File a Return If Gross Income Exceeds

Single
Under 65 $10,150
65 or older $11,700

Head of Household
Under 65 $13,050
65 or older $14,600

Married Filing Jointly
Under 65 (both spouses) $20,300
65 or older (one spouse) $21,500
65 or older (both spouses) $22,700

Married Filing Separately
Any age $3,950

Qualifying Widow(er) with Dependent Children
Under 65 $16,350
65 or older $17,550

YADAYADAYADA 7000 pages of crap....

Plain English? Hire a lawyer. Thanks Obama.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 1:55:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:44:49 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

The first thing you need to know about ObamaCare (The Affordable Care Act) is that, as of 2014, you either need to keep your current plan, obtain health insurance (called minimum essential coverage), get an exemption, or pay a fee for each month you go without coverage.

Do you require insurance if you're an unemployed homeless guy?

The requirement to have insurance is known as the Individual Mandate.

One of the key parts of " ObamaCare" is the individual mandate. Originally purposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, the individual mandate requires that all eligible Americans have at least basic health coverage.

Individual mandate requires that most Americans obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty. The individual mandate went into effect January 1st, 2014. The penalty will be applied to your year-end federal modified adjusted gross income for each month you don't have health insurance or an exemption.

What counts as minimum essential coverage?

Minimum essential coverage includes the following:
"Employer-sponsored coverage, including self-insured plans, COBRA coverage and retiree coverage
"Coverage purchased in the individual market, including a qualified health plan offered by the Health Insurance Marketplace
"Medicare Part A coverage and Medicare Advantage plans
"Most Medicaid coverage
"Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage
"Certain types of veterans health coverage administered by the Veterans Administration
"Most types of TRICARE coverage under chapter 55 of title 10 of the United States Code
"Coverage provided to Peace Corps volunteers
"Coverage under the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefit Program
"Refugee Medical Assistance supported by the Administration for Children and Families
"Self-funded health coverage offered to students by universities for plan or policy years that begin on or before Dec. 31, 2014 (for later plan or policy years, sponsors of these programs may apply to HHS to be recognized as minimum essential coverage)
"State high risk pools for plan or policy years that begin on or before Dec. 31, 2014 (for later plan or policy years, sponsors of these program may apply to HHS to be recognized as minimum essential coverage)
"Other coverage recognized by the Secretary of HHS as minimum essential coverage

What counts as minimum essential coverage?

Minimum essential coverage includes the following:
"Employer-sponsored coverage, including self-insured plans, COBRA coverage and retiree coverage
"Coverage purchased in the individual market, including a qualified health plan offered by the Health Insurance Marketplace
"Medicare Part A coverage and Medicare Advantage plans
"Most Medicaid coverage
"Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage
"Certain types of veterans health coverage administered by the Veterans Administration
"Most types of TRICARE coverage under chapter 55 of title 10 of the United States Code
"Coverage provided to Peace Corps volunteers
"Coverage under the Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefit Program
"Refugee Medical Assistance supported by the Administration for Children and Families
"Self-funded health coverage offered to students by universities for plan or policy years that begin on or before Dec. 31, 2014 (for later plan or policy years, sponsors of these programs may apply to HHS to be recognized as minimum essential coverage)
"State high risk pools for plan or policy years that begin on or before Dec. 31, 2014 (for later plan or policy years, sponsors of these program may apply to HHS to be recognized as minimum essential coverage)
"Other coverage recognized by the Secretary of HHS as minimum essential coverage

What do I need to do if I want to be sure I have minimum essential coverage or an exemption for 2014?

The vast majority of coverage that people have today counts as minimum essential coverage. For those who do not have coverage, who anticipate discontinuing the coverage they have currently, or who want to explore whether more affordable options are available, the Health Insurance Marketplace is open in every state and the District of Columbia. The Marketplace helps individuals compare available coverage options, assess their eligibility for financial assistance and find minimum essential coverage that fits their budget.

For those seeking an exemption from the individual responsibility provision, the Marketplace is able to provide certificates of exemption for many of the exemption categories. HHS has issued final regulations on how the Health Insurance Marketplace grants these exemptions. Individuals will also be able to claim certain exemptions for 2014 when they file their federal income tax returns in 2015. Individuals who are not required to file a federal income tax return because their gross income falls below the return filing threshold do not need to take any further action to secure an exemption.

2014 Federal Tax Filing Requirement Thresholds

Filing Status Age Must File a Return If Gross Income Exceeds

Single
Under 65 $10,150
65 or older $11,700

Head of Household
Under 65 $13,050
65 or older $14,600

Married Filing Jointly
Under 65 (both spouses) $20,300
65 or older (one spouse) $21,500
65 or older (both spouses) $22,700

Married Filing Separately
Any age $3,950

Qualifying Widow(er) with Dependent Children
Under 65 $16,350
65 or older $17,550

YADAYADAYADA 7000 pages of crap....

Plain English? Hire a lawyer. Thanks Obama.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 12:39:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:55:02 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Do you require insurance if you're an unemployed homeless guy?


The law amends the Internal Revenue Code and provides a number of exemptions from the mandate to purchase insurance: poor people, incarcerated persons, illegal aliens, and foreign nationals. There is also a religious exemption for any person who is a member of a "recognized religious sect or division" with "established tenets or teachings" that would forbid that person from accepting public or private insurance.[4] "Health sharing ministries""religious non-profit organizations where members contribute funds to cover the medical expenses of persons who need assistance"can also claim the exemption.

Exemptions from the monetary penalty are granted to members of Indian tribes and persons eligible for a "hardship" exemption, which would be determined administratively by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The law also provides for an "affordability" exemption, which would apply to workers whose out-of-pocket costs would exceed 8 percent of their "household" income. Under Section 1502, the Internal Revenue Service is authorized to enforce the health insurance mandate and to collect the penalties.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 6:31:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's the kind of inept attempt to create a national health care system that inevitably results from the corporate powers that be and their staunch ideological apologists-collaborators, i.e. conservatives, tying the hands of those endeavoring to ensure the kind of universal availability of health care that's normally found in other Western societies. But of course to evade the slightest bit of accountability the right invents the biased and derisive neologism "Obamacare" and merely by uttering it, by uttering a single word shifts all blame for the serious failings of the new system to Obama and the Democrats. Quite clever of them, I must admit. But it also once again betrays their partisanship and lack of integrity. As for the general public, well, shame on us for lazy-mindedly preferring and allowing the term "Obamacare" to catch on, shame on us for not recognizing that it was clearly designed to bias and skew our attitudes about a universal health care system toward negativity and cynicism, shame on us for once again being dupes of the right.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 6:57:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 6:31:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
It's the kind of inept attempt to create a national health care system that inevitably results from the corporate powers that be and their staunch ideological apologists-collaborators, i.e. conservatives, tying the hands of those endeavoring to ensure the kind of universal availability of health care that's normally found in other Western societies. But of course to evade the slightest bit of accountability the right invents the biased and derisive neologism "Obamacare" and merely by uttering it, by uttering a single word shifts all blame for the serious failings of the new system to Obama and the Democrats. Quite clever of them, I must admit. But it also once again betrays their partisanship and lack of integrity. As for the general public, well, shame on us for lazy-mindedly preferring and allowing the term "Obamacare" to catch on, shame on us for not recognizing that it was clearly designed to bias and skew our attitudes about a universal health care system toward negativity and cynicism, shame on us for once again being dupes of the right.

Ya shame on you
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 7:02:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 6:31:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
It's the kind of inept attempt to create a national health care system that inevitably results from the corporate powers that be and their staunch ideological apologists-collaborators, i.e. conservatives, tying the hands of those endeavoring to ensure the kind of universal availability of health care that's normally found in other Western societies. But of course to evade the slightest bit of accountability the right invents the biased and derisive neologism "Obamacare" and merely by uttering it, by uttering a single word shifts all blame for the serious failings of the new system to Obama and the Democrats. Quite clever of them, I must admit. But it also once again betrays their partisanship and lack of integrity. As for the general public, well, shame on us for lazy-mindedly preferring and allowing the term "Obamacare" to catch on, shame on us for not recognizing that it was clearly designed to bias and skew our attitudes about a universal health care system toward negativity and cynicism, shame on us for once again being dupes of the right.

Would you be in favor of abolishing private healthcare?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 7:13:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 7:02:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/17/2014 6:31:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
It's the kind of inept attempt to create a national health care system that inevitably results from the corporate powers that be and their staunch ideological apologists-collaborators, i.e. conservatives, tying the hands of those endeavoring to ensure the kind of universal availability of health care that's normally found in other Western societies. But of course to evade the slightest bit of accountability the right invents the biased and derisive neologism "Obamacare" and merely by uttering it, by uttering a single word shifts all blame for the serious failings of the new system to Obama and the Democrats. Quite clever of them, I must admit. But it also once again betrays their partisanship and lack of integrity. As for the general public, well, shame on us for lazy-mindedly preferring and allowing the term "Obamacare" to catch on, shame on us for not recognizing that it was clearly designed to bias and skew our attitudes about a universal health care system toward negativity and cynicism, shame on us for once again being dupes of the right.

Would you be in favor of abolishing private healthcare?

I would be and am very much in favor of a genuine system of socialized medicine, if I might boldly use the tabooed term.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 9:06:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 7:13:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/17/2014 7:02:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/17/2014 6:31:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
It's the kind of inept attempt to create a national health care system that inevitably results from the corporate powers that be and their staunch ideological apologists-collaborators, i.e. conservatives, tying the hands of those endeavoring to ensure the kind of universal availability of health care that's normally found in other Western societies. But of course to evade the slightest bit of accountability the right invents the biased and derisive neologism "Obamacare" and merely by uttering it, by uttering a single word shifts all blame for the serious failings of the new system to Obama and the Democrats. Quite clever of them, I must admit. But it also once again betrays their partisanship and lack of integrity. As for the general public, well, shame on us for lazy-mindedly preferring and allowing the term "Obamacare" to catch on, shame on us for not recognizing that it was clearly designed to bias and skew our attitudes about a universal health care system toward negativity and cynicism, shame on us for once again being dupes of the right.

Would you be in favor of abolishing private healthcare?

I would be and am very much in favor of a genuine system of socialized medicine, if I might boldly use the tabooed term.

Ya you can use it, it's a legitimate political position to have.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2014 9:25:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 9:06:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/17/2014 7:13:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/17/2014 7:02:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/17/2014 6:31:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
It's the kind of inept attempt to create a national health care system that inevitably results from the corporate powers that be and their staunch ideological apologists-collaborators, i.e. conservatives, tying the hands of those endeavoring to ensure the kind of universal availability of health care that's normally found in other Western societies. But of course to evade the slightest bit of accountability the right invents the biased and derisive neologism "Obamacare" and merely by uttering it, by uttering a single word shifts all blame for the serious failings of the new system to Obama and the Democrats. Quite clever of them, I must admit. But it also once again betrays their partisanship and lack of integrity. As for the general public, well, shame on us for lazy-mindedly preferring and allowing the term "Obamacare" to catch on, shame on us for not recognizing that it was clearly designed to bias and skew our attitudes about a universal health care system toward negativity and cynicism, shame on us for once again being dupes of the right.

Would you be in favor of abolishing private healthcare?

I would be and am very much in favor of a genuine system of socialized medicine, if I might boldly use the tabooed term.

Ya you can use it, it's a legitimate political position to have.

Although I really hate expanding crony government, Crony hospital care has really gotten out of control. I would advocate for it even though politicians would never agree to it.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 2:31:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 9:06:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/17/2014 7:13:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/17/2014 7:02:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/17/2014 6:31:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
It's the kind of inept attempt to create a national health care system that inevitably results from the corporate powers that be and their staunch ideological apologists-collaborators, i.e. conservatives, tying the hands of those endeavoring to ensure the kind of universal availability of health care that's normally found in other Western societies. But of course to evade the slightest bit of accountability the right invents the biased and derisive neologism "Obamacare" and merely by uttering it, by uttering a single word shifts all blame for the serious failings of the new system to Obama and the Democrats. Quite clever of them, I must admit. But it also once again betrays their partisanship and lack of integrity. As for the general public, well, shame on us for lazy-mindedly preferring and allowing the term "Obamacare" to catch on, shame on us for not recognizing that it was clearly designed to bias and skew our attitudes about a universal health care system toward negativity and cynicism, shame on us for once again being dupes of the right.

Would you be in favor of abolishing private healthcare?

I would be and am very much in favor of a genuine system of socialized medicine, if I might boldly use the tabooed term.

Ya you can use it, it's a legitimate political position to have.

Thank you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 5:31:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.

I don't know why, but I have the feeling that if I stay on this Site for another 2 years or so, I'll probably be regarded and treated by users the same way that you are now. I'll basically have become your replacement.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 5:55:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

Everyone buys in at a rate that is based on their income, so everyone benefits. This is meant to prevent uninsured people from driving up the costs for everyone else, and the early numbers show it's doing a good job.
Tsar of DDO
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 6:38:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.

I agreed it was a tax, but you failed to see the law requiring hospitals to provide a service without payment up front as a hidden tax. You have yet to differentiate why the one tax is worse than the other.
Gaming_Debater
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 6:59:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

Obamacare:

1.

The Justin Bieber of American finances. It hurts your wallet and bank account(s) the same way Bieber hurts the music industry. you tell its supporters that it's awful and they'll play the jealous card on you EVERY SINGLE TIME

2.

Obama adding "care" at the end of his name to lie to Americans, plus he's so stupid he couldn't think of a better name for his "health care," so to speak. He doesn't really care about you or anyone else but himself.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 7:59:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 6:38:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.

I agreed it was a tax, but you failed to see the law requiring hospitals to provide a service without payment up front as a hidden tax. You have yet to differentiate why the one tax is worse than the other.

"but you failed to see the law requiring hospitals to provide a service without payment up front as a hidden tax." Um the govt has been requiring this for decades and will continue to require it. The ACA and all of it's hidden taxes is just added on top. No to mention making people buy coverage they don't want or need or fear persecution from the IRS.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 8:03:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 5:31:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.

I don't know why, but I have the feeling that if I stay on this Site for another 2 years or so, I'll probably be regarded and treated by users the same way that you are now. I'll basically have become your replacement.

That means you are getting rid of your confirmation bias disease and starting to think for yourself. There is nothing that the masses of DDO hate more than a free thinking mind that doesn't kowtow to it's academic groupthink.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 10:12:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

I'm no expert but here is my take...

Before: The only people who have insurance are the people who really need it while the young and invincible twenty-something's don't bother, so insurance costs are high, which leads to more people going without insurance, which leads to people being hospitalized without paying the bill and missing basic treatments that could prevent more serious treatments from being necessary, which leads to medical costs going up, which leads to more people going without insurance, [repeat cycle]...

Obamacare: Through expanded Medicaid and by forcing everyone to purchase healthcare via the mandate, everyone (or at least significantly more people) are covered, leading to people paying their hospital bills and getting those necessary preventative treatments, leading to less health treatments being necessary, leading to costs going down, leading to more people buying into the system, leading to more people paying their hospital bills and getting those necessary preventative treatments, leading to [repeat cycle]...

In theory anyway.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 8:59:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 7:59:12 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:38:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.

I agreed it was a tax, but you failed to see the law requiring hospitals to provide a service without payment up front as a hidden tax. You have yet to differentiate why the one tax is worse than the other.

"but you failed to see the law requiring hospitals to provide a service without payment up front as a hidden tax." Um the govt has been requiring this for decades and will continue to require it. The ACA and all of it's hidden taxes is just added on top. No to mention making people buy coverage they don't want or need or fear persecution from the IRS.

And yet you won't admit the first, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is wrong and rail against it like you do the ACA. Why is that?

Secondly, what is worse, fearing persecution from the IRS or fearing persecution from the Feds with criminal time for refusing to accept a customer who can't pay for the services?

I'm just trying to understand why one is acceptable and the other is not when they really both are fundamentally against conservative principles.
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:04:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 5:31:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.

I don't know why, but I have the feeling that if I stay on this Site for another 2 years or so, I'll probably be regarded and treated by users the same way that you are now. I'll basically have become your replacement.

All I am asking is to explain the conservative mind set that allows the EMTALA to be within conservative principles yet the ACA is not. To treat you the same, I will now ask you.

Require private businesses accept customers whether they can pay or not for services and force the business to become a financier or a requirement that people without health insurance obtain a policy as a rule of law. Why is the former acceptable and the later not?
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:21:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 9:04:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:31:45 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.

I don't know why, but I have the feeling that if I stay on this Site for another 2 years or so, I'll probably be regarded and treated by users the same way that you are now. I'll basically have become your replacement.

All I am asking is to explain the conservative mind set that allows the EMTALA to be within conservative principles yet the ACA is not. To treat you the same, I will now ask you.

Require private businesses accept customers whether they can pay or not for services and force the business to become a financier or a requirement that people without health insurance obtain a policy as a rule of law. Why is the former acceptable and the later not?

I've never heard of this EMTALA before, so I don't know whether or not it's a good thing.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 9:57:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 8:59:16 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/19/2014 7:59:12 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:38:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.

I agreed it was a tax, but you failed to see the law requiring hospitals to provide a service without payment up front as a hidden tax. You have yet to differentiate why the one tax is worse than the other.

"but you failed to see the law requiring hospitals to provide a service without payment up front as a hidden tax." Um the govt has been requiring this for decades and will continue to require it. The ACA and all of it's hidden taxes is just added on top. No to mention making people buy coverage they don't want or need or fear persecution from the IRS.

And yet you won't admit the first, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is wrong and rail against it like you do the ACA. Why is that?

Secondly, what is worse, fearing persecution from the IRS or fearing persecution from the Feds with criminal time for refusing to accept a customer who can't pay for the services?

I'm just trying to understand why one is acceptable and the other is not when they really both are fundamentally against conservative principles.

You are what I call intellectually dishonest. Emergency medical service and deport is what is supposed to happen. Not continued lawless residence for the rest of ones life. This is what destroyed the healthcare industry. Having to pay for 11 to 20 million people free of charge for any medical treatment no matter how small. America's problems will never be solved as long as we play the game of intellectual dishonesty in order to run from and face hard decisions like enforcing the rule of law and making unpopular decisions. We never had a problem until the govt got involved and started mandating breaking the rule of law. Now play your worthless race card.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
slo1
Posts: 4,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 8:01:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 9:57:02 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/20/2014 8:59:16 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/19/2014 7:59:12 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:38:29 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:19:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2014 5:12:52 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/17/2014 4:16:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2014 1:01:27 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
In plain language, please. Please describe every aspect of the act. Thanks in advance.

It's a tax with many hidden additional taxes combined with wealth redistribution. A subsidy is wealth redistribution. You take money from peter and give it to paul so he can get his insurance for free or a great discount. It is also a future tool to regulate your behavior under the disguise that your behavior is costing the insurance Co. extra money to pay a claim you might submit thus raising rates for everyone and in the end costing the govt additional subsidy costs. And mind you having insurance is no guarantee that you will receive health care as there are huge deductibles you must pay first. Unless you have a major accident or illness you may never receive any benefit, ever. But you will have paid tens of thousands into it over your lifetime. It's a tax, pure and simple. And if you don't buy insurance you have to pay anyway via a tax for not buying it. It's a tax for the privilege of being alive. Your a burden on society the minute you are born. So you must pay a tax. But someone else has to pay your tax until you are 18. So not only do they have to pay your tax they have to pay theirs to. It is best to never have children as you will automaticly burden yourself with a tax that you would otherwise not have to pay. It makes no economic sense to have children anymore for those who would bear the burden.

I agree it is a hidden tax, just like the one that Ronald Reagan passed that required all hospitals accept emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay. Those who can pay have to foot the bill for those who can't via higher prices.

If you are going to give conservative speak on the evil of taxes, let's at least include all taxes, stated and hidden. A $30 box of keenix at the hospital is not the the same price as picking one up at walmart. It is $3 cost and $27 hidden tax.

Our entire way of life is maintained because of insurance. Home insurance, car insurance, life insurance, financial products built to mitigate risk. Who can afford to have their house burn down and rebuild it. Who would lend money to a borrower if they knew they would be out of luck getting their loan and interest back should something happen to the house. There is value to insurance even if you don't make a claim. We would be third world status without insurance.

If you want to rail against subsidies go ahead, but don't f' with insurance. Sure maybe we need to change the premise a bit and go towards high deductible, but stop insinuating that you and other conservatives are cold enough to look a cancer patient in the eye and deny them chemo because they can't pay up front or get a loan from a financial institution.

PS. you get more value from you local property tax, which most goes to the local school district when you have more children. Just saying.

"If you are going to give conservative speak" Huh, I think it's pretty much the truth. My comment has nothing to do with ideological confirmation bias disease. It's a taxing, wealth redistribution, behavioral control tool for the govt. Looks pretty obvious to me. The supreme court even ruled it was a tax. So I guess the supreme court is just full of sht.

I agreed it was a tax, but you failed to see the law requiring hospitals to provide a service without payment up front as a hidden tax. You have yet to differentiate why the one tax is worse than the other.

"but you failed to see the law requiring hospitals to provide a service without payment up front as a hidden tax." Um the govt has been requiring this for decades and will continue to require it. The ACA and all of it's hidden taxes is just added on top. No to mention making people buy coverage they don't want or need or fear persecution from the IRS.

And yet you won't admit the first, Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is wrong and rail against it like you do the ACA. Why is that?

Secondly, what is worse, fearing persecution from the IRS or fearing persecution from the Feds with criminal time for refusing to accept a customer who can't pay for the services?

I'm just trying to understand why one is acceptable and the other is not when they really both are fundamentally against conservative principles.

You are what I call intellectually dishonest. Emergency medical service and deport is what is supposed to happen. Not continued lawless residence for the rest of ones life. This is what destroyed the healthcare industry. Having to pay for 11 to 20 million people free of charge for any medical treatment no matter how small. America's problems will never be solved as long as we play the game of intellectual dishonesty in order to run from and face hard decisions like enforcing the rule of law and making unpopular decisions. We never had a problem until the govt got involved and started mandating breaking the rule of law. Now play your worthless race card.

Quite honestly I have no idea what you are writing about? race card? wtf?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 8:15:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
EMTALA may have driven up costs, but I dont think it really contributed that much to the number of uninsured people.

EMTALA only covers triage, not long term care... (here, take a morphine shot, you can still breathe)...

Obamacare was targeted to provide long term coverage for the uninsured by enrolling them in some kind of plan.

By a fair margin, the elderly cost far far more than EMTALA. It's just not a huge cost proportionally. Obamacare seeks young people to chip in before they get old and become a drain on the system.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 8:24:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Quite honestly I have no idea what you are writing about? " Precisely, you have no idea why healthcare costs spiraled out of control and now seek to use insanity to solve the problem.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%