New Taxes, Brought to You by the ACA:

[Doc]

Yeah... Because health is so different in varying states. Healthcare should be uniform among all states... So it is not a dividing point when states try and compete for business with other states. Healthcare should not be a bargaining option.

Yeah, that's the concern...that healthcare is uniformly expensive in all states. Imagine the medical costs in Mass everywhere.

[ExiledInIllinois]

So, maybe you are posting rumors as fact?

 

Oooops. You got me there. But if it was brought up directly with people, why would they not deny collecting SS while working. I will check into it. Just sounds to real to be embellished.

 

Yeah, that's the concern...that healthcare is uniformly expensive in all states. Imagine the medical costs in Mass everywhere.

 

Not really that... But I see your point. Why should states use healthcare to steal away other companies?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Wading through the bs here is most of the problem. As far as I know, you can't collect SS without severe penalties if you make over a nominal amount until you reach a certain age. I believe that age where you can make all you want and still collect SS is either 67 or 70. So EiI is just throwing out a canard. You said you've been lurking here for awhile so you understand the dynamics here. Basically most libs refuse to give specifics and when pressed use anecdotes rather than real facts. In another thread Romney was criticized for KB Toys issues when he had left Bain quite awhile prior to their folding up camp. The excuse for using that example had to do with something along the lines that he must have used the same practices. (I'm not arguing the practices one way or the other here) Anyway, again, welcome to the board. Your posts so far have been good posts.

I tend to demand that people source the stuff they write, and question claims I feel are ridiculous. I'm always open to quality discussion and debate, and have been pursuaded to change my mind in the past when faced with a more logical argument. Making those demands and asking those questions fosters better discussion in my experience.

 

Thanks for the kind words and the welcome.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I tend to demand that people source the stuff they write, and question claims I feel are ridiculous. I'm always open to quality discussion and debate, and have been pursuaded to change my mind in the past when faced with a more logical argument. Making those demands and asking those questions fosters better discussion in my experience.

 

Thanks for the kind words and the welcome.

THis is a direct and personal source with a fellow co-worker. Unless he and others are lying.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yeah... Because health is so different in varying states. Healthcare should be uniform among all states... So it is not a dividing point when states try and compete for business with other states. Healthcare should not be a bargaining option.

Wait... list me a single example of a monopoly lowering prices or providing better service.

 

You can't, which has been a hallmark of the left, and rightly so, for years. Competition is consumer friendly, lowering prices and producing better goods and services. Competing states will be driven by market forces to provide a system that is fluid and responsive, and will respond to new health needs as well as new research and technologies as the world advances. Conversely a single uniform federal system is not innovative or responsive. It is ponderous, impersonal, and bureaucratic. and it has no way of knowing it's flaws to improve apon them because it has no basis for comparison.

[3rdnlng]

I tend to demand that people source the stuff they write, and question claims I feel are ridiculous. I'm always open to quality discussion and debate, and have been pursuaded to change my mind in the past when faced with a more logical argument. Making those demands and asking those questions fosters better discussion in my experience.

 

Thanks for the kind words and the welcome.

 

Your welcome. Keep providing sources for your posts. If it's your personal area of expertise, it's fun to not supply the source at first. All the phonies will challenge you and then the real fun begins.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Your welcome. Keep providing sources for your posts. If it's your personal area of expertise, it's fun to not supply the source at first. All the phonies will challenge you and then the real fun begins.

The real fun is in seeing someone respond to logical discussion, and changing their mind. Almost everyone is capable of doing it.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Wait... list me a single example of a monopoly lowering prices or providing better service.

 

You can't, which has been a hallmark of the left, and rightly so, for years. Competition is consumer friendly, lowering prices and producing better goods and services. Competing states will be driven by market forces to provide a system that is fluid and responsive, and will respond to new health needs as well as new research and technologies as the world advances. Conversely a single uniform federal system is not innovative or responsive. It is ponderous, impersonal, and bureaucratic. and it has no way of knowing it's flaws to improve apon them because it has no basis for comparison.

 

Not in this case. The goal is to provide HC access for all. I agree, there has to be equillibrium... Right now, the game is too competitive.

 

For me it is all about providing care for all. I would accept the lessening of services and the raising of rates if everybody was afforded access.

[3rdnlng]

The real fun is in seeing someone respond to logical discussion, and changing their mind. Almost everyone is capable of doing it.

 

I agree, but after going round for round with some of the people here and it becomes apparent that logic is not within their abilities, that sometimes it's just fun to watch them walk away with their tails between their legs.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Really 3rd? You are constantly getting owned.

[3rdnlng]

Really 3rd? You are constantly getting owned.

 

Wow, you seem a little sensitive for someone that just said to me "oops" over stating rumors as fact.

 

If I'm constantly getting "owned" here I'm sure you'll come up with the specifics, since you never make schit up or shoot from the hip.

Edited July 3, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[TakeYouToTasker]

Not in this case. The goal is to provide HC access for all. I agree, there has to be equillibrium... Right now, the game is too competitive.

 

For me it is all about providing care for all. I would accept the lessening of services and the raising of rates if everybody was afforded access.

You're confusing me. You know were talking about your own personal health, and not your library card, right? You're talking about less available care, at a higher cost, provided by less qualified doctors. You know they have your very life in their hands, right?

 

And what in the world do you mean too competitive? As an industry healthcare is the single most regulated and least competitive industry in the country outside of the military-industrial sector, so it should come as no surprise that they are the two that see the highest rates of purchase inflation.

 

The problem is that there isn't nearly enough competition.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Yes. I know that we are talkinb about my life and the care I receive.

 

Really. As a federal worker I have too much choice from the competing health insurance companies. I do admit, the plan I am in (Humana) is starting to price me out after years of rising rates and lower service... I can handle that and remain footing the bill if everybody is given access. I just can't swallow it morally and ethically knowing there are people who go without coverage.

 

There are way too many HC insurance companies. Way too much choice. Except for the ones that fall through the cracks of the system by losing their jobs or having employers that don't want to offer them coverage.

[3rdnlng]

Yes. I know that we are talkinb about my life and the care I receive.

 

Really. As a federal worker I have too much choice from the competing health insurance companies. I do admit, the plan I am in (Humana) is starting to price me out after years of rising rates and lower service... I can handle that and remain footing the bill if everybody is given access. I just can't swallow it morally and ethically knowing there are people who go without coverage.

 

There are way too many HC insurance companies. Way too much choice. Except for the ones that fall through the cracks of the system by losing their jobs or having employers that don't want to offer them coverage.

 

 

TYTT:

 

I'm tempted to answer this softball tossed up high in the strike zone but this is all yours.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Answer it... I don't care who does.

 

The federal gov't IS to blame. They are trying appease the special interest insurance companies and keep them in business.

 

 

They should just do what is right, offer public option or tell everybody tough and go single payer.

 

The fed is enabling the dysfunction.

 

My father has been in the VA system for over 50 years... I can handle that system... He can too... He loves it... People want too much today.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The federal gov't IS to blame.

This is absolutely true, and you're almost there, but, and I think this is a fairly apt analogy, you are only treating symptoms, and not the disease.

 

They are trying appease the special interest insurance companies and keep them in business.

No... you've totally screwed up your causation. I'm not even sure what you mean here. It's like you have parts of three different unrelated sentences and you spliced them. You'll have to articulate this idea better.

 

They should just do what is right, offer public option or tell everybody tough and go single payer.

What philosophic metric are you using to justify "right" as a quantifiable absolute? What about those who have a different philosophic belief system, and internal moral code? The Separation of Church and State was a good idea because it prevented pervasive and corruptible philosophy from entering the law directly and legislating that the many must live under the repressive moral code of another. What makes your philosophy any different, and why should you be able to force it, at gun point, upon others?

 

The fed is enabling the dysfunction.

Yes. It is. The Federal Government is engaging in creating monopolies and cartels, and preventing competition from bringing down the costs of pharmaceuticals by creating insurmountable financial entry barriers into the industry via existing regulation and allowing patents that discourage industry competition. It perpetuates the single greatest price fixing entity in the world (a dirty little secret no one in government wants to tell you), disallowing competitive pricing. It creates layer upon layer of bureaucracy, driving up costs, and siphoning off dollars that would otherwise wind up back in the hands of consumers, be reinvested into patient care, and provide for profits which drive the economy. It is the power that the federal government exerts doing all the wrong things with a massive % of the resources that cause these problems.

 

My father has been in the VA system for over 50 years... I can handle that system... He can too... He loves it...

I'm glad for the both of you, and I support your right to choose that care.

 

People want too much today.

This attitude stifles innovation, and strikes of a life littered with a lack of achievement. Why strive for a life of mediocrity when the stars are such a short distance away? Why force others not to strive?

[CosmicBills]

Paint Romney into what corner? He's always maintained that it is a state's right, not a federal right. And what Mass wanted/needed wasn't what would work for the rest of the country. He'll talk about the percentage of people who opposed and still oppose Obamacare, and point out that people wanted Romneycare before it was implemented and still do. He'll also say that costs haven't gone down and are still the highest in the nation, and is where Obamacare could take the country.

With respect, he hasn't. I lived with him as my governor. I was then, and still am, a fan of the guy personally. He talked about it often as being a model that would and SHOULD be used nationally. He has no ground to stand on with regards to ACA -- which is what Santorum (correctly) warned would happen.

 

Will it have a huge effect? I don't know. But to say it will have little to no effect on Romney's campaign is underselling it I think. It's a hugely divisive issue that both candidates support/supported. Obama stuck to his guns on it and made it law, Romney backpedaled away from it to shore up his base. I think he would have been better off embracing it from a purely political perspective (thus giving Obama no where to go with it). But by backing away from it, he's opened himself up to unnecessary attacks now.

[tomato can]

So you counter a thread on real taxes with potential job growth. Why not give us your opinion of raising taxes on dividends nearly 300% to a whopping 43.8%? And that doesn't even include state taxes. It's !@#$ing crazy. So much for the allure of dividend paying stocks.

 

 

Jim, I will give you an opinion. Look at it this way. Its a little off topic but its a reason a lot of people don't get mad about it this. For Example :

 

Bain Capital got close to a 400% return on investment after it purchased KB Toys and took out dividends. Lot of people looked at that shortly after KB went into bankputcy and said hmmmmm, all this looks fishy, maybe even criminal. People that support what Bain did say hey "that's business".

 

Now take raising taxes 300% on dividend paying stocks. Take your Policeman, Fireman, or School Teacher that make $70,000 a year. Got a wife, kids, mortgage payment, car payments, school tuition, insurance, ect. They don't have the luxury of purchasing dividend paying stocks. Do you really expect them to feel sorry for the guy making well into the 6 figure range with enough disposable income to purchase dividend paying stocks because he got a tax increase? You know what there response usually is "that's investing"

 

Now I dont agree with raising taxes 300% on someones dividend paying stock because it's an absurd amount.

 

I havde stated my opinion on the Bain / KB Toys debacle in another thread. Don't want to sound like a broken record repeating in this thread.

Edited July 3, 2012 by tomato can

[Chef Jim]

FERS employee working the last 23 years, now turns 65 and collects SS. Not CSRS employee. All federal employees after and around '84ish have been under the FERS system... Which means they kick into SS like everybody else. I must be really naive, I never thought it possible to still be working and collect SS... Depending on how much you make... It is like what? A 2000 buck month raise? That ain't right? They are hogging the jobs for the younger generation while working a job that they because of age are less productive at!

 

SS benefits are 100% based on age and the amount you put in and 0% on your work status. It would be like us bitching about you drawing a pension and still working. You can do whatever the !@#$ you want. Unfortunately many people have to work while they're collecting SS.

 

So you're suggesting we kick the old folks to the curb? How "progressive" of you.

 

Yes. Yes.

 

As mine as we are all out for ourselves (healtcare, etc..)... !@#$ 'em all... Except Bain Capital of course!

 

Why are you cool with a 300% tax increase? Why should the government take more than 50% of your income and you never ansered the last question.

[Joe Miner]

Reading an EII post is like having a cartoon character open a closet that is so full, the door is about to burst, and suddenly being buried in a pile of **** falling out of the closet.

 

It's predictable, stupid, and just a mess of ****.