Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 129
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    29,391
    Rep Power
    21

    Default Make sure that repeal of the individual mandate is upheld in conference

    Now we go to conference on the tax bill.

    The Senate must stand firm in conference and ensure that the Conference Report on the tax bill contains the repeal of the individual mandate.

    Frankly, I don't give a **** about the rest of Obamacare, it was always the individual mandate that I despised.

    While I am hardly satisfied with Republican performance on the legislative front, repeal of the individual mandate will make me slightly less ******* off at them.

    I can go back to high deductible health insurance and the rest of America can have freedom to do whatever the **** they want in regards to health insurance.

    The ONLY way I will call this tax bill a win is if the final product contains the repeal of the individual mandate.

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. Likes Cratic3947, DMK, Camp liked this post
  4. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zantax View Post
    You think health care is free or what?
    Absolutely not. That is why I think every American should have health care insurance. Not having insurance does not mean you will never get sick. It just means you may not be able to take responsibility in paying for your healthcare. More Americans without health care coverage will result in more Americans not able to pay for their health care when they actually need it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildmouse View Post
    If your premiums are being subsidized by other wealth IS being redistributed to you. It's just not in the form of fungible cash.
    No, that is not redistribution of wealth, that is providing a basic safety net. That would be like claiming if you don't have a job and are not paying taxes, the military, roads, other infrastructure, etc. is being redistributed to you since you didn't pay for it. Bottom line, it comes down to whether or not we feel we should provide basic healthcare coverage to our most vulnerable. It is not like they will never get sick or never need treatment. Just like they may benefit from roads or our military. If they get sick, we are obligated to treat them through ERs etc. which happen to be the MOST EXPENSIVE way to get care. It saves everybody money if we have preventative care, etc. vs. waiting until everything is an emergency.

  5. Sponsored Links


  6. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildmouse View Post
    It is silly to claim that it's not redistribution of wealth by calling it part of the 'safety net'. The 'safety net' is the overarching term used to describe the programs that exist to.....redistribute wealth.
    I would argue that the redistribution of wealth is more likely to happen when a person has NO HEALTHCARE COVERAGE. Again, they will still get sick just like all human beings are prone to do. The only difference is they rely on others to subsidize their treatment when they can't pay. Even without a safety net that allows folks to get care when it is cheaper, we still must treat them through ER care when it is MOST EXPENSIVE. Are arguing that we should let folks who cannot afford healthcare simply die if they don't have the money?

    Otherwise, you have really only two choices: assist folks in getting healthcare insurance so they can get less expensive treatment or pay for their treatment after it is most expensive through ER care.

    That is one of the reasons that Trumpcare was going to add billions more to the debt. It is more expensive to care for folks through ERs and preventative care tends to save money long term.

  7. Sponsored Links


  8. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    across your supply lines
    Posts
    41,177
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midwesterner View Post
    I would argue that the redistribution of wealth is more likely to happen when a person has NO HEALTHCARE COVERAGE. Again, they will still get sick just like all human beings are prone to do. The only difference is they rely on others to subsidize their treatment when they can't pay. Even without a safety net that allows folks to get care when it is cheaper, we still must treat them through ER care when it is MOST EXPENSIVE. Are arguing that we should let folks who cannot afford healthcare simply die if they don't have the money?

    Otherwise, you have really only two choices: assist folks in getting healthcare insurance so they can get less expensive treatment or pay for their treatment after it is most expensive through ER care.

    That is one of the reasons that Trumpcare was going to add billions more to the debt. It is more expensive to care for folks through ERs and preventative care tends to save money long term.
    I am a bit torn on life-saving care. I would like us to provide it IF we can afford it. But people who don't buy their own insurance should NOT get all of the bells and whistles afforded to people that DO fulfill their responsibilities. People who go to the ER because they have a cold should be beaten bloody.

  9. Sponsored Links


  10. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wildmouse View Post
    I am a bit torn on life-saving care. I would like us to provide it IF we can afford it. But people who don't buy their own insurance should NOT get all of the bells and whistles afforded to people that DO fulfill their responsibilities. People who go to the ER because they have a cold should be beaten bloody.
    We can and must provide it. For a fraction of the money we wasted after attacking and occupying Iraq, we could provide GREAT healthcare coverage to folks here in America. If you want to put AMERICA FIRST, it seems you would advocate for taking care of Americans who need healthcare coverage first as well. We spend hundreds of billions providing treatment to folks all over the world after we bomb the **** out of them. Meanwhile we have a reluctance to allow healthcare coverage for Americans who don't earn a lot of money. I guess maybe if Trump bombs Detroit, we might get more acceptance on providing healthcare coverage to those folks.

  11. Sponsored Links


  12. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oryx View Post
    Doesn't Switzerland have a law like that? The problem with your idea here is that there are way too many people who don't know how to use guns and/or are afraid of them.
    Itís not a proposal, it a hypothetical question regarding principle. Liberals seem to think itís okay for the government to mandate that everyone purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, and to fine them if they donít. I want to know if liberals would be okay with a law mandating them to acquire one, whether they want one or not, or face a fine when they file their taxes. The principle is the same, is it not?

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  13. Sponsored Links


  14. #96
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fallenturtle View Post
    Why would there be a mandate for owning a gun? Everyone at some point will need healthcare in their lifetime... that can't be said for guns.

    Frankly I never understood why they made the mandate use a penalty. Seems like it would have been better to charge everyone a healthcare tax and then offer a rebate for those who are insured.
    It doesnít have to be a gun; any non-universally desired item would do. I could have said smart phone or computer, but I chose a gun because I know that liberals are more likely to not want one. The point is, everyone does not want to purchase the mandated health insurance, yet people are being punished with a tax if they donít. If you think you would be better off financially by being self insured, that should be your prerogative, not a violation of law.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  15. Sponsored Links


  16. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oryx View Post
    It's a stupid comparison. I don't want everyone to own a gun because many people are afraid of them and have no idea how to use them, increasing my odds of getting shot. Everyone having health insurance doesn't endanger me.
    The comparison may be stupid, but the principle is the same. People are being forced to buy something they may not want and are being taxed if the refuse. If that something was a gun, liberals would be screaming ďunconstitutional!Ē

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  17. Sponsored Links


  18. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,160
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    The comparison may be stupid, but the principle is the same. People are being forced to buy something they may not want and are being taxed if the refuse. If that something was a gun, liberals would be screaming “unconstitutional!”
    Like I said, it's a stupid comparison. You should drop it.

  19. Sponsored Links


  20. #99
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oryx View Post
    Like I said, it's a stupid comparison. You should drop it.
    So I guess that means you aren’t going to answer the question about the principle of the government fining people for refusing to purchase something they do not want, huh. Typical.
    Last edited by Samm; December 6th, 2017 at 7:11 pm.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  21. Sponsored Links


  22. #100
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Austin Texas
    Posts
    20,497
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zantax View Post
    If they want charity from me, they can ask me nicely, otherwise, yes, they can **** off and die. But even then, the odds for them aren't good, I can save the lives of dozens if not hundreds of people in the third world for what it costs to treat an Americans illness. They already won the lottery by being born here and having tremendous opportunites many in the world don't have to make enough money to pay for their own care.
    a large number of drugs are discovered based on tax payer funded research. since your so opposed to spending your money to help others if you get ill you should refuse any treatment that is based on a discovery from a tax payer supported institution...
    yes i am a pirate,200 years to late

  23. Sponsored Links


  24. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,160
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    So I guess that means you aren’t going to answer the question about the principle of the government fining people for refusing to purchase something they do not want, huh. Typical.
    I don't support the health care mandate, and I wouldn't support a gun mandate. That doesn't change the fact that you're attempting to make a very stupid and pointless comparison.

  25. Sponsored Links


  26. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oryx View Post
    I don't support the health care mandate, and I wouldn't support a gun mandate. That doesn't change the fact that you're attempting to make a very stupid and pointless comparison.
    Thank you for finally addressing the point, but does not matter how stupid you think the comparison is. (Irrespective of the fact that liberals in general love Obamacare and hate guns.) The principle is the same regardless of what the item that the government mandates that the people purchase under penalty of a tax.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  27. Sponsored Links


  28. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,160
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    Thank you for finally addressing the point, but does not matter how stupid you think the comparison is. (Irrespective of the fact that liberals in general love Obamacare and hate guns.) The principle is the same regardless of what the item that the government mandates that the people purchase under penalty of a tax.
    Nonsense. You're comparing apples to hand grenades. The principle is not the same.

  29. Sponsored Links


  30. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oryx View Post
    Nonsense. You're comparing apples to hand grenades. The principle is not the same.
    The principle is exactly the same ... a fine for refusing to purchase an item mandated by the government.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  31. Sponsored Links


  32. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,717
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oryx View Post
    Nonsense. You're comparing apples to hand grenades. The principle is not the same.
    The mandated items (health insurance and guns) are entirely different, but the principle is identical.

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  33. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •