Chef Jim Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Well, the way I see it: (More people who have health insurance) = (Fewer uninsured, un-paying people who receive health care) (Fewer uninsured, un-paying people who receive health care) = (Fewer tax dollars from the general population) Bottom line:The more people who pay for their own health insurance, the less I have to pay for their lack of health insurance. Is that right or am I missing something? So it is all about you. Nice liberal compassion there. Now answer my question. If this is going to end up costing us the same or less then why must we load up with four years worth of taxes before it goes fully into affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Well, the way I see it: (More people who have health insurance) = (Fewer uninsured, un-paying people who receive health care) (Fewer uninsured, un-paying people who receive health care) = (Fewer tax dollars from the general population) Bottom line:The more people who pay for their own health insurance, the less I have to pay for their lack of health insurance. Is that right or am I missing something? If this statement goes back to the Amish, youre missing the point that the Amish will REFUSE getting help from the government in ANY form. They arent paying for it becuase they wont use it. Ever. They will get their own care and pay for it out of their own pockets. And if someone gets sick and cant afford the care, they have a community fundraiser to get the money. Pretty slick, huh? What youre missing is that NOBODY NEEDS "health insurance" to get health "care." ANYBODY can get ANY health care they need. Right now. Paying for it is the problem. But people should be able to walk in and pay cash for their care if they have the means and should not be FORCED into a government program. Its optional and should stay that way. There should be a clear opt out for those who have the means to pay for their own care out of their own pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 So it is all about you. Nice liberal compassion there. Now answer my question. If this is going to end up costing us the same or less then why must we load up with four years worth of taxes before it goes fully into affect. When I say "me", "taxpayers" is implied. But you already knew that. Plus, I'm trying to put it in terms you can empathize with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 If this statement goes back to the Amish, youre missing the point that the Amish will REFUSE getting help from the government in ANY form. They arent paying for it becuase they wont use it. Ever. They will get their own care and pay for it out of their own pockets. And if someone gets sick and cant afford the care, they have a community fundraiser to get the money. Pretty slick, huh? What youre missing is that NOBODY NEEDS "health insurance" to get health "care." ANYBODY can get ANY health care they need. Right now. Paying for it is the problem. But people should be able to walk in and pay cash for their care if they have the means and should not be FORCED into a government program. Its optional and should stay that way. There should be a clear opt out for those who have the means to pay for their own care out of their own pockets. Who cares about the Amish, I'm simply talking numbers. I have no problem letting people opt out of health insurance if they PROVE THEY CAN PAY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE. I don't know if it still applies, but I remember that you used to not have to pay for auto insurance, provided you kept something like $25,000 untouched in a bank account (or something like that). People of means are not the people we are currently collectively paying for however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 And there you have it: union members, state and local government employees are exempt from health care taxes until 2017. Okay...so WHO'S going to pay for this then? Anyone? Bueller?? Bueller? Holy !@#$ing Hell!! They !@#$ing did it! You got to be Shi$&ing me. Out!@#$ingrageous. This angers the hell out of me! This isn't right man, it's just not right. How can you cut a deal with the Unions? How can they exempt the !@#$ing Unions and not everyone else, that's just not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Holy !@#$ing Hell!! They !@#$ing did it! You got to be Shi$&ing me. Out!@#$ingrageous. This angers the hell out of me! This isn't right man, it's just not right. How can you cut a deal with the Unions? How can they exempt the !@#$ing Unions and not everyone else, that's just not right. So it should be mandatory for everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 So it should be mandatory for everyone? By the logic you were just describing, you should be against this as well, but I don't expect you to be, specially since your leader signed off on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 By the logic you were just describing, you should be against this as well, but I don't expect you to be, specially since your leader signed off on it. I strive to have my thoughts governed by logic, so you are correct in thinking that I'm against this. I'm not a big fan of powerful unions in general. You, on the other hand, seem to have been against mandatory health insurance before you were for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Who cares about the Amish, I'm simply talking numbers. I have no problem letting people opt out of health insurance if they PROVE THEY CAN PAY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE. I don't know if it still applies, but I remember that you used to not have to pay for auto insurance, provided you kept something like $25,000 untouched in a bank account (or something like that). People of means are not the people we are currently collectively paying for however. So in other words, those that can't afford it have to have it but since they can't afford it someone else has to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Bottom line:The more people who pay for their own health insurance, the less I have to pay for their lack of health insurance. Is that right or am I missing something? You're not just missing something. You're missing everything. You make it sound like by making people have health insurance, that the people who can't afford it now will suddenly be able to afford it when it's mandated. If it were that simple, why tax everyone? Let me tell you why: BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T BUYING IT NOW ARE GOING TO LET US PAY FOR THE BULK OF THEIR COSTS WHEN THEY'RE ON THE PLAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 In my religion we don't object to insurance, we just object to being forced to carry it. May I opt out? Oh BTW, I've just started this religion so if anyone wants to join PM me, I'll send you the appliction. We take Visa, Mastercard, Amex and Discover. Oh and cash works too. What about Diner's Club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 What about Diner's Club? From you I'll take a check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 When I say "me", "taxpayers" is implied. But you already knew that. Plus, I'm trying to put it in terms you can empathize with. All the while ignoring the fact that I've asked you a question regarding funding the plan twice now. Let's make it three. If the plan is cost neutral or even may run at a profit ( )why does it need four years of prefunding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Holy !@#$ing Hell!! They !@#$ing did it! You got to be Shi$&ing me. Out!@#$ingrageous. This angers the hell out of me! This isn't right man, it's just not right. How can you cut a deal with the Unions? How can they exempt the !@#$ing Unions and not everyone else, that's just not right. Who in the !@#$ do you think the bailout of GM and Chrysler was for? Were even paying them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Who in the !@#$ do you think the bailout of GM and Chrysler was for? Were even paying them now. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Obama was very clear during the election that SEIU, and all his union brothers, would have a seat at his table for all his policies. I believe he even told us that while using his negro dialect and one of those important fonts that make things believable. All joking aside, this is our fault. We let t his happen. And now we have to live through paying the price. This is gonna get greasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I strive to have my thoughts governed by logic, so you are correct in thinking that I'm against this. I'm not a big fan of powerful unions in general. You, on the other hand, seem to have been against mandatory health insurance before you were for it... You've got to be kidding me. I've posted thread after thread with many logical reasons for why I am opposed to THIS health insurance reform, and this is what you have to say? Priceless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 You're not just missing something. You're missing everything. You make it sound like by making people have health insurance, that the people who can't afford it now will suddenly be able to afford it when it's mandated. If it were that simple, why tax everyone? Let me tell you why: BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T BUYING IT NOW ARE GOING TO LET US PAY FOR THE BULK OF THEIR COSTS WHEN THEY'RE ON THE PLAN. Maybe, but what's the solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 All the while ignoring the fact that I've asked you a question regarding funding the plan twice now. Let's make it three. If the plan is cost neutral or even may run at a profit ( )why does it need four years of prefunding? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 You've got to be kidding me. I've posted thread after thread with many logical reasons for why I am opposed to THIS health insurance reform, and this is what you have to say? Priceless I'm not opposed to the principle of mandatory health insurance, but rather the proposed exemptions to the mandatory health insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Who in the !@#$ do you think the bailout of GM and Chrysler was for? Were even paying them now. You're right, let's be real here, it was for the Unions and to preserve their jobs. But at least that was a "noble" reason to do it, this on the other hand is to shelter these !@#$wads from getting taxed, while the rest of the population, other than government workers of course, get screwed in the ass. This really !@#$ing pisses me off. Talk about a sheisty backroom deal. This wasn't done for the good of the country, it was to win political points and win over votes. Isn't that unconstitutional? Not that the Constitution matters anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts