• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Americans to get $1.3 billion in health care rebates

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,705
3,512
126
Sorry Fern, freeloaders get on my nerves.
Why? You are pissed off at his hypocrisy which you don't even know is real or was said to piss you off intentionally. BF rages on about liberals voting for laws that permit free loading, laws to help people who are in trouble say because they are jobless so when he goes unemployed he tells you he'll sit at home and collect. But freeloading is impossible to avoid. It's there to help while you find a job and that can't help but disincentives the effort. Would you prefer a plug in his heart that gets yanked in a month if he doesn't find work. And who paid into unemployment. No you can't help folk without them taking advantage of it. The folk who go nuts about that don't live in the real world and easily justify taking advantage when they can. Then you come along and only help with that when you condemn him. Your scorn is exactly like his. You tell him that it's OK to have contempt for users and that's what caused him to take his turn at it, if in fact he did and just didn't jab you in your own hypocrisy. You are two of the same, the only difference being whom you define as a freeloader. There is no perfect way to help people but helping is something we do. It's much better to allow some asshole to lay around who gets into trouble that allow a decent person in need to go under. Be grateful there's a system he can take advantage of.
 
Last edited:

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,788
1,521
136
Many uninsured were screaming, in unnecessary pain. I am sure people who got rescinded once they got cancer were screaming too. Of course you don't care about them as much as the insurance companies "screaming." $50B over 6 years is nothing.
Deflect, deflect, deflect.

Oh, and if $50 billion over 6 years is "nothing" why the hell should we be happy about $1.3 billion over one year?!? THAT'S LESS THAN NOTHING!
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Why? You are pissed off at his hypocrisy which you don't even know is real or was said to piss you off intentionally. BF rages on about liberals voting for laws that permit free loading, laws to help people who are in trouble say because they are jobless so when he goes unemployed he tells you he'll sit at home and collect. But freeloading is impossible to avoid. It's there to help while you find a job and that can't help but disincentives the effort. Would you prefer a plug in his heart that gets yanked in a month if he doesn't find work. And who paid into unemployment. No you can't help folk without them taking advantage of it. The folk who go nuts about that don't live in the real world and easily justify taking advantage when they can. Then you come along and only help with that when you condemn him. Your scorn is exactly like his. You tell him that it's OK to have contempt for users and that's what caused him to take his turn at it, if in fact he did and just didn't jab you in your own hypocrisy. You are two of the same, the only difference being whom you define as a freeloader. There is no perfect way to help people but helping is something we do. It's much better to allow some asshole to lay around who gets into trouble that allow a decent person in need to go under. Be grateful there's a system he can take advantage of.
Ouch. BoberFett and Ausm owned by Moonbeam in a single post. :wub:
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Deflect, deflect, deflect.

Oh, and if $50 billion over 6 years is "nothing" why the hell should we be happy about $1.3 billion over one year?!? THAT'S LESS THAN NOTHING!
Pointing out partisan stupidity is like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

"$1.3B is a ton of money!"

"$50B is nothing."

o_O
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
Deflect, deflect, deflect.

Oh, and if $50 billion over 6 years is "nothing" why the hell should we be happy about $1.3 billion over one year?!? THAT'S LESS THAN NOTHING!
No deflection needed, once you think rationally and not like a reflexive Obama hater, you should give it a shot.
The little insight that completely escapes you is that insurance companies KNEW they would have to refund any overhead over 20%, so you would expect them to cut their overhead to not have to refund much.
So the big savings is not in the $1.3B they refunded, it's in the overhead they cut to not have to refund more.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,649
13,732
136
Unless you're in the 1%, you're a freeloader too. Remember who pays the bulk of the taxes in this country. Hint: It ain't you.
Incorrect. The top 1% pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, not all taxes, and the contribution of payroll taxes to federal revenue currently rivals income taxes. Billionaires only pay SS taxes on the first $110K of earned income, nothing on capital gains or dividends.

Workforce participation rate is extremely low due to the marvelous & ceaseless efforts of Job Creators, and federal revenues are at their lowest % of GDP since 1950. The top 1% share of national income doubled over the last 30 years, too, and their effective tax rate fell by 1/3.

Anybody who thinks that America's wealthiest are somehow overtaxed is delusional.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
I pay more in taxes than you do, junior. Or do you still want to pretend that you make more than you actually do, Mr. MyTownsAverageIncomeIs100K?
LMAO yeah rigggght.....Leeching of unemployment and pay more taxes then I do?? LMFAO X 10 100th power. I haven't been jobless in 35 years jr....
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Incorrect. The top 1% pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, not all taxes, and the contribution of payroll taxes to federal revenue currently rivals income taxes. Billionaires only pay SS taxes on the first $110K of earned income, nothing on capital gains or dividends.

Workforce participation rate is extremely low due to the marvelous & ceaseless efforts of Job Creators, and federal revenues are at their lowest % of GDP since 1950. The top 1% share of national income doubled over the last 30 years, too, and their effective tax rate fell by 1/3.

Anybody who thinks that America's wealthiest are somehow overtaxed is delusional.
Says the person on unemployment who pays more taxes then anyone else...LMFAO.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Incorrect. The top 1% pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, not all taxes, and the contribution of payroll taxes to federal revenue currently rivals income taxes. Billionaires only pay SS taxes on the first $110K of earned income, nothing on capital gains or dividends.

Workforce participation rate is extremely low due to the marvelous & ceaseless efforts of Job Creators, and federal revenues are at their lowest % of GDP since 1950. The top 1% share of national income doubled over the last 30 years, too, and their effective tax rate fell by 1/3.

Anybody who thinks that America's wealthiest are somehow overtaxed is delusional.
Billionaires also dont' draw any more from SS than people at the bottom, so I'm not sure what your point is. A handful of billionaires drawing (if they even bother cashing the checks) a few hundred dollars a month certainly doesn't affect the budget. We're talking millionths of a percent.

And I said nothing about them being over or under taxed, merely that they pay most of the taxes to keep this country running, and therefore anybody not in that club is a freeloader who gets more out of government than they put in. You, me, and 99% of America is freeloading. Hell, that's practically defines a progressive income tax, where people at a median income pay less than the average tax bill.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,514
24
76
I pay more in taxes than you do, junior. Or do you still want to pretend that you make more than you actually do, Mr. MyTownsAverageIncomeIs100K?
The jerk in me wishes to point out my participation in the ownage of Ausm in that thread. That is all, carry on. ():)
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Says the ignorant child...
I am an ignorant child? I'm not the idiot on this forum who rails against the Gubermint but then brags about taking advantage of it's unemployment safety net and is perfectly capable of working. You Sir are a walking breathing form of hypocrisy. You think every Liberal worth his/her salt would be swooping down on you and reaming you a new asshole.:whiste:
 
Last edited:

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,514
24
76
I am an ignorant child? I'm not the idiot on this forum who rails against the Gubermint but then brags about taking advantage of it's unemployment safety net and is perfectly capable of working. You Sir are a walking breathing form of hypocrisy. You think every Liberal worth his/her salt would be swooping down on you and reaming you a new asshole.:whiste:
Every time you disagree with BoberFett, you have to throw in this unemployment issue. Seems like you have been doing it as long I as have been here. It is getting very old, makes you look extremely immature, and is getting very old. Also got you into trouble today too.

Maybe you should give it up, and disagree using actual points related to the issue rather than the same tired personal insult?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,649
13,732
136
Billionaires also dont' draw any more from SS than people at the bottom, so I'm not sure what your point is. A handful of billionaires drawing (if they even bother cashing the checks) a few hundred dollars a month certainly doesn't affect the budget. We're talking millionths of a percent.

And I said nothing about them being over or under taxed, merely that they pay most of the taxes to keep this country running, and therefore anybody not in that club is a freeloader who gets more out of government than they put in. You, me, and 99% of America is freeloading. Hell, that's practically defines a progressive income tax, where people at a median income pay less than the average tax bill.
My point is that you're wrong about who pays the majority of taxes in this country- it's not the top 1%, at all, but rather the bottom 99%-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

People outside the top 1% aren't rich in the same terms as the top .1%, not at all. You'd have to lower the bar of "rich" to the top 10% for what you offer to be true.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,525
42
86
The only provision to be successful? Are you joking. Ask people under 26 who got health insurance through their parents. Ask kids with pre-existing conditions if that's the only successful provision.
Except these provisions do not improve the quality of health care, nor make the care any cheaper. They just shift the burden of payment off of one group and place it on another group.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
Except these provisions do not improve the quality of health care, nor make the care any cheaper. They just shift the burden of payment off of one group and place it on another group.
They sure improve the quality of care for people who couldn't get coverage for pre-existing conditions.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,525
42
86
They sure improve the quality of care for people who couldn't get coverage for pre-existing conditions.
While reducing the quality of care for someone else.

Care is a limited resource. For it to be given to one person, means it is not given to someone else. Only difference is, this "someone else" concept is easier to ignore.


Look at that provision you call a success, look at it in the full picture of the full American population, it is a net difference of zero.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,798
4,695
126
While reducing the quality of care for someone else.

Care is a limited resource. For it to be given to one person, means it is not given to someone else. Only difference is, this "someone else" concept is easier to ignore.


Look at that provision you call a success, look at it in the full picture of the full American population, it is a net difference of zero.
Really, so if I give a drug to someone, that means someone else is not going to get it? Nothing that can be done about it, like I don't know, the drug company making more? I guess I better stop buying Tylenol, wouldn't want other people to be in pain on my account.
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,167
200
106
So We are going to get back $1.25 of the $1000.00+ increase we have had in over the last two years!!!! WOOOOHOOOO!! I can pay off that gallon of milk we charged last week!!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Incorrect. The top 1% pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, not all taxes, and the contribution of payroll taxes to federal revenue currently rivals income taxes. Billionaires only pay SS taxes on the first $110K of earned income, nothing on capital gains or dividends.

Workforce participation rate is extremely low due to the marvelous & ceaseless efforts of Job Creators, and federal revenues are at their lowest % of GDP since 1950. The top 1% share of national income doubled over the last 30 years, too, and their effective tax rate fell by 1/3.

Anybody who thinks that America's wealthiest are somehow overtaxed is delusional.
They are also paid SS on that 110K. Unsurprising a liberal forgets that point again.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Every time you disagree with BoberFett, you have to throw in this unemployment issue. Seems like you have been doing it as long I as have been here. It is getting very old, makes you look extremely immature, and is getting very old. Also got you into trouble today too.

Maybe you should give it up, and disagree using actual points related to the issue rather than the same tired personal insult?
If you don't like it block me....and it's your opinion which I really don't give a shit about in the first place....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY