And here come the taxes - Obamacare Fees

[IGBT]

Elections Have Consequences. If you voted for the obama or didn't vote at all you voted for all these parasitic expenses that will only increase and become more frequent as the train wreck "obama care" careens out of control.

 

[feralkid]

Elections Have Consequences. If you voted for the obama or didn't vote at all you voted for all these parasitic expenses that will only increase and become more frequent as the train wreck "obama care" careens out of control.

Or the opposite will happen; or something in between. We'll see.

 

[Incorruptible]

Tell that to Sweden.

Capitalism is superior to socialism and only a moron would support socialism.

 

[theeedude]

Capitalism is superior to socialism and only a moron would support socialism.

Tell that to Finland.

 

[Incorruptible]

Tell that to Finland.

Tell that to the US. The US was built on Capitalism you moron.

 

[shady28]

Tell that to Finland.

Really. Governing Finland would be like Governing the city of St Louis, or Dallas.

It's a country of 5.4 million. The city of Helsinki generates 1/3 of the countries GDP.

Not exactly oranges to oranges there.

They also have a household debt that is 101% of their GDP.

On the topic of their state funded healthcare, taxes, etc -

From Wikipedia :

"Finland's health care is more bureaucrat-managed than in most Western European countries, though many use private insurance or cash to enjoy private clinics. Some reforms toward more equal marketplace have been made in 2007-2008.[64] In education, child nurseries, and elderly nurseries private competition is bottom-ranking compared to Sweden and most other Western countries.[53] Some public monopolies such Alko remain, and are sometimes challenged by the European Union. "


"In 2008, the OECD reported that "the gap between rich and poor has widened more in Finland than in any other wealthy industrialised country over the past decade" and that "Finland is also one of the few countries where inequality of incomes has grown between the rich and the middle-class, and not only between rich and poor."[47]"


"State and municipal politicians have struggled to cut their consumption, which is very high at 51.7% of GDP compared to 56.6% in Sweden, 46.9 in Germany, 39.3 in Canada, and 33.5% in Ireland.[35] Much of the taxes are spent on public sector employees, many of which are jobs-for-life and amount to 124,000 state employees and 430,000 municipal employees.[15] That is 113 per 1000 residents (over a quarter of workforce) compared to 74 in the US, 70 in Germany, and 42 in Japan (8% of workforce).[63] "

 

[Dannar26]

We spend over 700 billion dollars every year on the most insanely bloated military in the world. I don't want to support that. I have no choice. Deal.

Our military has a useful function. Hoodrats on welfare have no function, except for ensuring that cities are a danger to exist in. Deal.

 

[nixium]

You are presuming that such social programs were necessary, which they were not and are not.



Not saying that healthcare didn't need to be reformed. But it is definitely not a fundamental right. Just like driving ANY car is not a fundamental right.



This is my primary beef. The supreme court from ~1890-1950 totally fucked up the interpretation of the commerce clause, which has ultimately lead us down the path we are on now. And now they are too scared to change it, because of "stare decisis" (i.e., the weight of old decisions). Nevermind that those interpretations are going to ultimately bankrupt the damn country.

Look, let's cut through the BS political jargon and get to the basics. Free market healthcare would mean that a certain set of the population would not get access to health care unless someone else paid for them. That's the bottom line of the "for profit" approach. There's no guarantee that adequate charity will ever be available. I for one don't want to live in a country where someone dies because they couldn't afford basic health services, because they couldn't pay for it.

I was in China one time, and outside a flashy mall surrounded by foreigners, a woman and her bandaged husband were on the pavement begging for money for treatment. China's communist style health centers have been disbanded to mostly cater to must-pay hospitals, where the conservative/libertarian wet dream is true: only those who pay for healthcare will get it.

My GF (at the time) and I were making good money. Yet when she had food poisoning one night and was passing out, the hospital wouldn't treat her unless I mustered up a 1000 RMB post haste. I was running around at 2 am trying to find an ATM to draw money.

My biggest problem with the conservatives here is this. When did your ideology blind you to basic human concerns and common sense? What happened to the golden rule? Why do you think that just because things are working well for you now (good job/good pay/good health insurance) things won't change drastically in the future, and that you might need to use the effects of these programs? Is your view of your life really that rosy?

I urge all conservatives to visit the third world and then come back before talking about "wasting money" on social programs and "inefficiency". Not saying they can't be improved - they most certainly can - but this one sided, ideology inspired vitriol is damaging.

Also, the ones who support the military, I'd like you guys to visit some war torn areas to understand the effect of all that money spent on the Bombs & Mines department. And if you are that interested in inefficiency... for all that money spent, keep in mind that someone with a bomb in his briefs almost destroyed an airliner.

 

[mect]

Not sure if serious. Socialism doesn't work and it's a complete violation of liberty. Capitalism is the way and anyone who believes in the BS about socialism needs to have their head examined.

Alright, so we need to do away with public utilities, public roads, public education, libraries, museums, parks, universities, research centers, forest service, national park service, BLM, recreation and aquatic centers, zoos, and 100 additional pages of sociallized programs we have here in the US. After all, socialism doesn't work. I'm a pretty conservative guy, fiscally, but anyone that doesn't recognize the need for some level of socialism is just straight ignorant. Pure capitalism has never and will never work. The argument between fiscally conservative and liberal groups should not be about whether socialism is good or bad, but what level of socialism is optimal.

 

[lotus503]

Look, let's cut through the BS political jargon and get to the basics. Free market healthcare would mean that a certain set of the population would not get access to health care unless someone else paid for them. That's the bottom line of the "for profit" approach. There's no guarantee that adequate charity will ever be available. I for one don't want to live in a country where someone dies because they couldn't afford basic health services, because they couldn't pay for it.

I was in China one time, and outside a flashy mall surrounded by foreigners, a woman and her bandaged husband were on the pavement begging for money for treatment. China's communist style health centers have been disbanded to mostly cater to must-pay hospitals, where the conservative/libertarian wet dream is true: only those who pay for healthcare will get it.

My GF (at the time) and I were making good money. Yet when she had food poisoning one night and was passing out, the hospital wouldn't treat her unless I mustered up a 1000 RMB post haste. I was running around at 2 am trying to find an ATM to draw money.

My biggest problem with the conservatives here is this. When did your ideology blind you to basic human concerns and common sense? What happened to the golden rule? Why do you think that just because things are working well for you now (good job/good pay/good health insurance) things won't change drastically in the future, and that you might need to use the effects of these programs? Is your view of your life really that rosy?

I urge all conservatives to visit the third world and then come back before talking about "wasting money" on social programs and "inefficiency". Not saying they can't be improved - they most certainly can - but this one sided, ideology inspired vitriol is damaging.

Also, the ones who support the military, I'd like you guys to visit some war torn areas to understand the effect of all that money spent on the Bombs & Mines department. And if you are that interested in inefficiency... for all that money spent, keep in mind that someone with a bomb in his briefs almost destroyed an airliner.

I think it stems from the very real feeling that in order for them to be winners in life there has to be losers in life. Its really like measuring ones own value based on the suffering of others. I have healthcare, I pay my own way and if you cant fuck you I win, I'm better etc etc.


I prefer a national healthcare system where everyone can get he medical attention they need, on top of that a Private system where people who can afford it pay for additional care etc.

But people are too wrapped up in measuring themselves against someone elses suffering. Nothing pisses these type people off more than happy poor people that can have basic needs met.

 

[theeedude]

Really. Governing Finland would be like Governing the city of St Louis, or Dallas.

It's a country of 5.4 million. The city of Helsinki generates 1/3 of the countries GDP.

Not exactly oranges to oranges there.

They also have a household debt that is 101% of their GDP.

On the topic of their state funded healthcare, taxes, etc -

From Wikipedia :

"Finland's health care is more bureaucrat-managed than in most Western European countries, though many use private insurance or cash to enjoy private clinics. Some reforms toward more equal marketplace have been made in 2007-2008.[64] In education, child nurseries, and elderly nurseries private competition is bottom-ranking compared to Sweden and most other Western countries.[53] Some public monopolies such Alko remain, and are sometimes challenged by the European Union. "


"In 2008, the OECD reported that "the gap between rich and poor has widened more in Finland than in any other wealthy industrialised country over the past decade" and that "Finland is also one of the few countries where inequality of incomes has grown between the rich and the middle-class, and not only between rich and poor."[47]"

"State and municipal politicians have struggled to cut their consumption, which is very high at 51.7% of GDP compared to 56.6% in Sweden, 46.9 in Germany, 39.3 in Canada, and 33.5% in Ireland.[35] Much of the taxes are spent on public sector employees, many of which are jobs-for-life and amount to 124,000 state employees and 430,000 municipal employees.[15] That is 113 per 1000 residents (over a quarter of workforce) compared to 74 in the US, 70 in Germany, and 42 in Japan (8% of workforce).[63] "

As Republicans like to tell us, small states are the laboratories of democracy, where ideas can be tested before more widespread adoption.

 

[Incorruptible]

Alright, so we need to do away with public utilities, public roads, public education, libraries, museums, parks, universities, research centers, forest service, national park service, BLM, recreation and aquatic centers, zoos, and 100 additional pages of sociallized programs we have here in the US. After all, socialism doesn't work. I'm a pretty conservative guy, fiscally, but anyone that doesn't recognize the need for some level of socialism is just straight ignorant. Pure capitalism has never and will never work. The argument between fiscally conservative and liberal groups should not be about whether socialism is good or bad, but what level of socialism is optimal.

The only ignorant one is you. Socialism is a violation of liberty and has no place.

 

[1prophet]

The only ignorant one is you. Socialism is a violation of liberty and has no place.

That's right, a Mad Max world that favors the strong and culls the weak is the way to go, every man to himself according to his ability, let the weak and poor eat cake.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Look, let's cut through the BS political jargon and get to the basics. Free market healthcare would mean that a certain set of the population would not get access to health care unless someone else paid for them. That's the bottom line of the "for profit" approach. There's no guarantee that adequate charity will ever be available. I for one don't want to live in a country where someone dies because they couldn't afford basic health services, because they couldn't pay for it.

And yet you do not live in a country where someone would die because they could not pay for healthcare. You never have. Hospitals in the US are obligated to provide emergency medical care to the sick, regardless of their ability to pay.

And please don't confuse my point. I am not arguing that healthcare for the poor is "bad" or shouldn't happen. Or that I somehow get off on the fact that I can pay for health insurance whereas others can't. My argument is about who bears the cost. The people who benefit from the program? Nope. Not them. Can't ask them. Nooooo way. I ask, why the hell not? Why can't we spread the cost among all Americans? Obamacare is a social welfare program. Meant to help everyone, right? So why doesn't everyone contribute equally to the expense?

And for me it is not about the amount of money involved. The 1-2% increase in my medicare tax is a pittance. Rather, its a matter of principal. Beneficiaries should invest in the programs they benefit from. If for no other reason than they should contribute to paying for the cost of those programs. If the increase in medicare tax is 1-2% in my tax bracket, spreading it amongst all Americans (i.e., to include the other 95%) would mean that the per person allocation would be even less.

I was in China one time, and outside a flashy mall surrounded by foreigners, a woman and her bandaged husband were on the pavement begging for money for treatment. China's communist style health centers have been disbanded to mostly cater to must-pay hospitals, where the conservative/libertarian wet dream is true: only those who pay for healthcare will get it.

China is not and never will be the U.S. As mentioned above, U.S. hospitals are obligated by law to provide emergency medical treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.

My biggest problem with the conservatives here is this. When did your ideology blind you to basic human concerns and common sense?

Again, I'm not a republican. I am economically very conservative, but I am not a republican.

My ideology is ultimately that it is not the federal government's responsibilty to parent its citizens. Government provides for basic human concerns and needs, which I (unlike many) do not consider to include health insurance. Basic concerns that our government should address include establishing a stable environment that provides national security, food security, economic security, etc. Health insurance is a luxury. It is not a fundamental right. I am sensitive to the needs of the poor. My father that has no health insurance presently and I am very nervous about what might happen if he were to get sick. But I do not expect or want the government to intrude into my life or anyone elses life except as it is necessary to provide the basic functions outlined above and in the constitution.

But since the government insists on weighing in on its citizen's lives, my other fundamental expectation is that the government should implement its programs in an economically sound manner. It is not going to do ANYONE in this country any good if the government runs the country into bankruptcy. Sure, everyone will have healthcare insurance. But no one will care because there is no damn country.

And before you say anything, let me just say a number.

That is the US national debt as of right now. And it is fucking frightening. So instead of whining about what the government can give me. I am whining about why the government INSISTS on spending more money WE DO NOT HAVE implementing programs that WE CANNOT AFFORD.

Again, I am not saying that health insurance is not an important issue, or that medical costs need to be addressed. But we need to get our heads screwed on straight or there will be nothing left for anyone to argue about.

What happened to the golden rule? Why do you think that just because things are working well for you now (good job/good pay/good health insurance) things won't change drastically in the future, and that you might need to use the effects of these programs? Is your view of your life really that rosy?

The U.S. government is not a person. It is a business, or at least a not for profit, and it needs to be run like one. Nevermind that your statement is utterly hypocritical when you consider all the shit the U.S. government does to other countries. I understand that bombing the shit out of Iraq was believed necessary for our national security. But its a little hard to argue that the U.S. government should be bound by the golden rule when it has conducted abject war in multiple countries at once.

As for my circumstances, yes. My outlook on life IS that rosy. Why? Because I unlike many people have planned for bad times. I've posted on numerous occasions that I started investing in the stock market when I was 19. I have been seriously saving money since I got my first job at age 13. 18 years later, I can survive for ~10 years without having to take a dime from the government assuming I sell my house and move into an apartment, and for ~ 5 years if I don't. My retirement plans do not include social security, because I honestly do not think social security will be around when I retire. Or at least I will be excluded from benefiting from it (despite having paid into it since I was 16).

So . . . no. I do not forsee personally benefiting from any government social welfare program. But that does not mean that I do not understand the alleged value of such programs. Nor does it change my opinion that these programs could be better implemented through non-profits and private industry. If there is such a demand for those programs, why wouldn't the market service that demand to at least some degree?

I urge all conservatives to visit the third world and then come back before talking about "wasting money" on social programs and "inefficiency". Not saying they can't be improved - they most certainly can - but this one sided, ideology inspired vitriol is damaging.

I've been to the third world. Many times. Its horrible and I feel for those people. Why? Because people in the third world have far worse problems on their minds then "do I have health insurance." For fuck sake many of those people have a hard time finding fresh water. To compare the plight of the uninsured american to the third world is just pathetic. It is not even a remotely relevant comparison, and you know it.

And again, I am not advocating for a stoppage to all social welfare programs. Just the ones the government lacks the power to implement, cannot afford, and shoulders the cost on people who already pay there fair share and more.

 

[mect]

The only ignorant one is you. Socialism is a violation of liberty and has no place.

Liberty is such a vague term that means something different to just about every person you talk to, I'm not really interested in debating whether or not socialism violates liberty, so I'll just go with, who the hell cares. I'm no purist, I just want a system that provides for an optimal lifestyle for myself and society as a whole. Some level of socialism is necessary for that to happen. I suppose there are some people that would rather live a lesser lifestyle knowing they aren't being forced to help society. I'd prefer to live in a country like the US, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, and every other developed country on the face of the planet that utilizes some level of socialism for the benefit of everyone.

 

[berzerker60]

Health insurance [health care] is a luxury.

Hahahahaha what the hell

That is the US national debt as of right now. And it is fucking frightening. So instead of whining about what the government can give me. I am whining about why the government INSISTS on spending more money WE DO NOT HAVE implementing programs that WE CANNOT AFFORD.

Oh gosh a big out of context number! Did you know the Sun is 1,391,000 km wide? That seems like a big number! Surely that means it will destroy us all in its flame, since we're basing things solely on how big the numbers seem.

FYI the US debt is probably marginally larger relative to GDP than is ideal, and should absolutely be brought down in the long-term, but poses absolutely no threat to the United States in the short- or medium-terms, and is absolutely manageable. Cutting in the face of recession is a proven terrible strategy that caused the Great Depression, yet it's brought up every time because it fits ideological goals, not because it actually works. The 1990s would have benefited greatly from us paying down the debt with our surpluses, rather than huge tax cuts and throwing endless money into wars.

The U.S. government is not a person. It is a business, or at least a not for profit, and it needs to be run like one.

Hahahaha, oh okay, it's just a joke post. No one could actually think the US government is or should be run like a business, despite their fundamental and enormous differences.

Here's another funny joke: Your family isn't a charity. It needs to be run like a business! If employees (children) aren't producing surplus value, they need to be fired immediately! If our family isn't making an annual profit to distribute to shareholders, our management could get fired, so downsizing is probably in order.

Both of those analogies fail to exactly the same degree.

I have been seriously saving money since I got my first job at age 13.

Congrats on being in an area where there's legal work to be done starting at age 13, and that you were hired to do it, and the money didn't have to be immediately spent on putting food in your family's mouths. Not everyone has that good fortune. But feel free to shit on them anyway, since surely your life circumstances are applicable to everyone else.

If there is such a demand for those programs, why wouldn't the market service that demand to at least some degree?

Because no one else has the resources, social position, taxing power, enforcement mechanism, and absolute faith and full credit of the United States government. Also, we know that businesses and non-profits don't perform these roles, because in real life history - not libertarian fantasy free market solves all problems theory land - they absolutely did not. Social Security was the reaction to generations of the vast majority of American citizens dying in poverty. A tiny minority do now. Did we just jump the gun, and the Free Market was going to fix the problem the following year?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Tell that to the US. The US was built on Capitalism you moron.

Actually, it was built on a not particularly popular revolution, a civil war, the eradication of the Native American population and subsequent taking control of the western portion of what eventually became the modern U.S.

One should probably also mention the role of the 2 world wars and the 'Cold War'.

Capitalism was only one, albeit important, part of what went into building the modern U.S.

(edit to change formatting)

 

[theeedude]

Tell that to the US. The US was built on Capitalism you moron.

Yeah, Social Security, Medicare, and Apple Pie.

 

[piasabird]

The military is actually something that has a constitutional requirement. However, I am tired of the USA being the world's policeman. They are suppose to guard our borders, not Spain, France, Germany, Korea, Japan, Phillipines, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosavo, Egypt and everyone else in the world. Bring our boys home. World War II ended and so did the Korean Conflict. Our soldiers are just targets. Put them on our borders and shoot everything that comes accross.

 

[piasabird]

Communism worked so well for the Russians. Breadlines are like a holiday.

 

[theeedude]

Communism worked so well for the Russians. Breadlines are like a holiday.

Who's proposing communism in America?

 

[Generator]

It's a rather curious transfer scheme though. Why the healthy and young should be called upon to transfer wealth to the old and sick is puzzling.

I just have to ask, did you have posters of Bundy and Dhamer on your walls growing up?

As you can see from above the right wing despises society. That the best place for their boot is on their grandparents neck. Such is the nature that we are dealing with here, so when something like ACA becomes law they are absolutely dumbfounded.

 

[Veliko]

Communism worked so well for the Russians. Breadlines are like a holiday.

Capitalism is working so well for Somalia. Breadlines are a pipedream.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And before people start posting "1st world problem," "Suck it rich boy, etc." Yes, I am well off. No, I am not ashamed to admit it. Yes, I empathize with those less fortunate than me. But no, I do not support giving those people anything through a government program. So fire away with your insults if you want. I don't particularly care. But I'm not going to apologize for being pissed off at the fact I and other members of my socioeconomic circle are being tapped to pay the fees of every inefficiently run and poorly thought out government subsidy program that happens to get a politician voted into office.

Suck it rich boy, lol.

So, how exactly did you earn all of your income and was some of that income derived from other people being paid poorer wages? How much of your spending power is derived from lower wages to the lower classes? Did you actually earn all of your money, or was some of it expropriated from the labor of others?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Suck it rich boy, lol.

So, how exactly did you earn all of your income and was some of that income derived from other people being paid poorer wages? How much of your spending power is derived from lower wages to the lower classes? Did you actually earn all of your money, or was some of it expropriated from the labor of others?

Considering I worked 160 hour + weeks for ~5 years of my life, I would say that I earned it.

I am a patent attorney - so I'm not sure how it can be said that any of my income was expropriated from the labor of others. I do have an assistant who keeps my docket in order . . . but I wouldn't say my income is in any way derived from her efforts. Not to understate her importance, of course.

That said, an argument could be made that anyone who has ever made any money whatsoever derived that income from the labor of others. So . . . . not sure what your point is. Or if it is even relevant to the discussion.

As to my spending power - it is the same as everyone else who lives on the U.S. dollar, because spending power amounts to "what can one buy with a given amount of money." How much money one has is not relevant to that concept. If you are asking about how much of my wealth is attributed to lower wages of other people . . . I would say little to none. I work in a highly specialized field, and my income (apart from investment returns) is derived almost solely from my own labor.