ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[Atreus21]

Funny. The Liberals have based their whole existence on building a freeloader society.

I was thinking something similar. Wasn't Nancy Pelosi the person who told someone that food stamps are badges of honor?

 

[michal1980]

So what? There's a tradeoff in the ACA that Righties ignore completely, that the cost of coverage for pre-existing conditions of aging needs to be covered by participation when people are younger & less likely to need care. It's a way to average costs over time, a way to invest in our own futures.

So what?

Why should the young, have to pay more because old farts who haven't taken care of them selves need care?

Hmm, the left now keeps screaming about personal responsibility.

How is it responsible to have kids/young adults pay for old people's insurance?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Funny. The Liberals have based their whole existence on building a freeloader society.

Even if I accept this at face value, how does that justify so-called "conservatives" getting up in arms about a program designed to eliminate freeloading?

Unless, of course, people like you don't actually stand for anything other than hating Democrats.

 

[Matt1970]

Even if I accept this at face value, how does that justify so-called "conservatives" getting up in arms about a program designed to eliminate freeloading?

Unless, of course, people like you don't actually stand for anything other than hating Democrats.

Maybe it is a "bit" of a stretch but you did accuse the Conservatives of not knowing how Insurance works. The reason why I put bit in quotes is here in NY they used to run a commercial showing a lady opening a can of cat food top eat and then had a slogan "Foodstanps, help for the tough time". If ADVERTISING food stamps on TV isn't creating a freeloader society I have no idea what is.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If ADVERTISING food stamps on TV isn't creating a freeloader society I have no idea what is.

The point of advertising food stamps is to let people know that help is available. It's not like people who can afford food are going to see the ads and suddenly decide they should stop buying food and become "freeloaders".

You're side-tracking here at any rate. If you hate freeloading so much why would you oppose a law specifically designed to counter it?

 

[fskimospy]

The point of advertising food stamps is to let people know that help is available. It's not like people who can afford food are going to see the ads and suddenly decide they should stop buying food and become "freeloaders".

You're side-tracking here at any rate. If you hate freeloading so much why would you oppose a law specifically designed to counter it?

The wrong sports team made it.

 

[Matt1970]

The point of advertising food stamps is to let people know that help is available. It's not like people who can afford food are going to see the ads and suddenly decide they should stop buying food and become "freeloaders".

That's exactly what they are going to do. Advertising does one thing and one thing only, entice people into doing something they normally wouldn't have done. Unreal.....

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That's exactly what they are going to do. Advertising does one thing and one thing only, entice people into doing something they normally wouldn't have done. Unreal.....

Okay, so you'd rather have people starve or eat cat food than use government services provided specifically to ensure that people don't starve or eat cat food.

That's between you and your conscience.

But you still didn't answer my question. If you hate freeloading -- so much that you're upset about old ladies having an alternative to cat food -- why would you oppose a law specifically designed to counter freeloading?

 

[Incorruptible]

Okay, so you'd rather have people starve or eat cat food than use government services provided specifically to ensure that people don't starve or eat cat food.

That's between you and your conscience.

But you still didn't answer my question. If you hate freeloading -- so much that you're upset about old ladies having an alternative to cat food -- why would you oppose a law specifically designed to counter freeloading?

Why should one person have to pay so that someone else should be able to eat? The government has no right to do this nonsense.

 

[zinfamous]

Mostly lucky?

Its more like Dems think that every poor person is just one handout away from making it. If only we keep giving these people more, there lives will be better.

That all the poor are unlucky, idiots, that need someone else to feed, shelter, and care for them. And the benevoltent democrats are just the people to do so, because they 'care'. They care that the evil hardworking people of america, some how screwed the 'poor' guy, and its not his fault he's poor, its that evil working guy.

And the solution? Take the labor of the working guy, and give it to the 'poor'

I, too, am curious about this desire of yours to regress our nation to a bronze-age society of morality and social value.

If you're willing to try this out, in some newly-unincorporated region of the US, fenced-off from the rest of the country (you can have Kansas or Kentucky, if you wish), then go for it.

It would be an interesting research opportunity and provide valuable insight for the rest of us.

....actually, it wouldn't. We already know what it's like to live in such a woefully uneducated, disease-ridden, unskilled oligarchy such as what you propose. We know about ancient Greece, we know about Rome. We ahve a pretty damn good idea what it was like to live in a society of 98% upwardly immobile citizens..

 

[Matt1970]

Okay, so you'd rather have people starve or eat cat food than use government services provided specifically to ensure that people don't starve or eat cat food.

That's between you and your conscience.

But you still didn't answer my question. If you hate freeloading -- so much that you're upset about old ladies having an alternative to cat food -- why would you oppose a law specifically designed to counter freeloading?

Nice bleeding heart moment. I am sure people haven't heard of foodstamps. Your ACA will not do much to deter freeloading. The fines for non-compliance in the beginning will be around $1000/ year at first but health insurance is around $5000/year. You do the math. It's just another law passed to collect TAXES.

 

[zinfamous]

Why should one person have to pay so that someone else should be able to eat? The government has no right to do this nonsense.

This has been an indisputable value of modern society--one brought forth by efficient agriculture, technological development, and centuries of political will.

Such values of government have long been a lynchpin of the Republican party, and Democratic party. That your current crop of conservative zealots have raised the boogeyman of taxes and the mythical "welfare demon sucking your money dry," it's easy for the most zealous to ignore the amazing benefits of modern culture.

Yes, it probably costs you pennies to contribute to these benefits that you, too, enjoy in returned economic strength and value services--but you seem convinced that it costs you hundreds.

Amazing, I know.

 

[zinfamous]

Nice bleeding heart moment. I am sure people haven't heard of foodstamps. Your ACA will not do much to deter freeloading. The fines for non-compliance in the beginning will be around $1000/ year at first but health insurance is around $5000/year. You do the math. It's just another law passed to collect TAXES.

what is the true cost of these boogeymen freeloaders?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nice bleeding heart moment.

Let me guess.. you're a "Christian"?

Your ACA will not do much to deter freeloading. The fines for non-compliance in the beginning will be around $1000/ year at first but health insurance is around $5000/year. You do the math. It's just another law passed to collect TAXES.

The fine is lower than the cost of health insurance because.. ta da.. it doesn't provide health insurance! It's there to encourage people to get insurance and to cover some of the costs associated with freeloading -- people who don't have insurance, can't pay for their care, and just show up at the hospital and consume resources.

Your vociferous objections suggest that you either really can't be bothered to think through these issues, or that eskimospy is correct -- your problem isn't with freeloading, it's with who passed the law fighting against it.

 

[Matt1970]

Let me guess.. you're a "Christian"?



The fine is lower than the cost of health insurance because.. ta da.. it doesn't provide health insurance! It's there to encourage people to get insurance and to cover some of the costs associated with freeloading -- people who don't have insurance, can't pay for their care, and just show up at the hospital and consume resources.

Your vociferous objections suggest that you either really can't be bothered to think through these issues, or that eskimospy is correct -- your problem isn't with freeloading, it's with who passed the law fighting against it.

No, I don't like the Government telling me I have to purchase something that is associated with a privelage. What you don't see to copmprehend is there are a lot of people out there who do not qualify for Medicaid and yet cannot afford another $5000 per person to have health insurance.

 

[manimal]

No, I don't like the Government telling me I have to purchase something that is associated with a privelage. What you don't see to copmprehend is there are a lot of people out there who do not qualify for Medicaid and yet cannot afford another $5000 per person to have health insurance.

So your saying we have to pay for their problems because they cant afford it? How is that not a handout using your tortured logic.

Make em sign a waiver where they refuse ambulance care and ANY hospital visits without paying up front. See how that works for you...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Nice bleeding heart moment. I am sure people haven't heard of foodstamps. Your ACA will not do much to deter freeloading. The fines for non-compliance in the beginning will be around $1000/ year at first but health insurance is around $5000/year. You do the math. It's just another law passed to collect TAXES.

One can also order up insurance for a month for $200; get the appropriate info for the IRS for that tax year and cancel it come January.

the other is that the government states that they will provide tax credits for those that are below the income level.
$5000 insurance - what type of credit will they provide to help pay for it and when/how. A tax refund of $5000. the insurance company is going to wait a whole year for their payment? Or a tax refund of $2500; still, one will have to pay the $5000 up front; do they have the $400/month lying around if they are at the income threshhold.

And what happens if there is something external that is going against the refund; the government promises to help cover your costs, but takes the refund due to other legal issues.

Insurance companies have to be registered with the state; how is one supposed to evaluate what all they will cover.

Many will not provide you with the binder until after you sign up; then you will be out the "processing" fee as well as a delay in repayment if you cancel within the first month.

 

[nehalem256]

Okay, so you'd rather have people starve or eat cat food than use government services provided specifically to ensure that people don't starve or eat cat food.

Some people do not even deserve the cat food.

But you still didn't answer my question. If you hate freeloading -- so much that you're upset about old ladies having an alternative to cat food -- why would you oppose a law specifically designed to counter freeloading?

Well for one it dramatically expands Medicaid. How is the government providing people free medical care going to counter freeloading? :hmm:

Or we could get into how it forces men to subsidize health care for "independent" women.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, I don't like the Government telling me I have to purchase something that is associated with a privelage.

And I don't like the government forcing me to pay taxes to provide subsidies to oil companies making billions of dollars, or to pay for illegal wars that kill thousands of innocents.

Welcome to society.

Some people do not even deserve the cat food.

Probably not, but I wouldn't want you eating cat food anyway.

Or we could get into how it forces men to subsidize health care for "independent" women.

We could if we were all obssessed misogynists. Maybe you can start a club.

 

[nehalem256]

We could if we were all obssessed misogynists. Maybe you can start a club.

Expecting "independent" women to take care of themselves is not misogyny

 

[Incorruptible]

This has been an indisputable value of modern society--one brought forth by efficient agriculture, technological development, and centuries of political will.

Such values of government have long been a lynchpin of the Republican party, and Democratic party. That your current crop of conservative zealots have raised the boogeyman of taxes and the mythical "welfare demon sucking your money dry," it's easy for the most zealous to ignore the amazing benefits of modern culture.

Yes, it probably costs you pennies to contribute to these benefits that you, too, enjoy in returned economic strength and value services--but you seem convinced that it costs you hundreds.

Amazing, I know.

Taking away money from one group of people to give to others doesn't help them it only makes them dependent. This is not the solution and I dont want to pay for this no matter the cost

 

[Atreus21]

The free loader argument is hilarious. It makes every non insured person an enemy of society.

Maybe we should mandate that everyone buy only so much food per month so that they don't drive up costs for the rest of us.

It's not about individual freedoms. It's about the collective. Or at least what government considers the "collective".

 

[nehalem256]

The free loader argument is hilarious. It basically makes every non insured person an enemy of society.

Maybe we should mandate that everyone buy only so much food per month so that they don't drive up costs for the rest of us.

It's not about individual freedoms. It's about the collective. Or at least what government considers the "collective".

Its hilarious because in many case they stop being freeloaders by the government providing them health care through medicaid.

 

[Matt1970]

So your saying we have to pay for their problems because they cant afford it? How is that not a handout using your tortured logic.

Make em sign a waiver where they refuse ambulance care and ANY hospital visits without paying up front. See how that works for you...

We will do that right after we make people who drop out of school sign a waiver saying they will not bitch about how much money other people make or go on welfare.

 

[Cerb]

Well for one it dramatically expands Medicaid.

No, it allows for a dramatic expansion of Medicaid. Big difference.