Obamacare
Options
Replies
-
The topic of the post was "Obamacare" - so people on public assistance are not what we're talking about here. The Medicaid system for those folks is a longstanding program.
So what about this?{{snip}}
The fact that anybody can make it if they work hard does not necessarily mean that everyone can make it. Somebody has to make the sandwiches. Mathematically, somebody will always be in the bottom 10% - that's just how percentages work. The question is, how miserable shall we allow laissez-faire capitalism to make those people on the bottom? Can we do anything about it? Should we?
{{snip}}
Yes, you are right. Someone will always be in the bottom 10%, however, the expectation(hope) would be that those individuals would take the opportunities this country provides everyone to better their situation and rise from that situation. This country does have many programs in place that cater to the poor such as food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid(free healthcare) and many others. Of course there are individuals who genuinely need these service and for that reason I believe it is right that the services exist, however, I have personally witnessed the abuse of these services by a significant population. Poverty rates have not significantly dropped in over 40 years. Is that because welfare has created a "culture of proverty"? Income taxes are only paid by the top 50% of the population so to increasingly burden those same tax payers when the bottom 50% have no skin in the game and when there has been no appreciable decline in proverty rates over the last 40 years, to me, is unjust.
Gotta go. I'll need to continue the fun another day. Have a good one.
Subway is not going anywhere. Papa John's pizza is not going anywhere. Walmart is not going anywhere. The folks who work there do not have health insurance,,, or if they do the Co. pays such a tiny piece of the cost that nobody can actually use it (you can get paid in dollars, OR in insurance, your choice - I know people who make this choice). These are the folks who the ACA is all about. Right now they have no insurance, so they use lots of robitussin and just pray they don't get really sick. When they do get sick they go to the ER, get treated, and walk out with a $3,500 bill they can't pay. This is what Obamacare is trying to fix.
Your answer to everything is hard work and education - but understand this: If every person working at Subway goes out and gets an engineering degree, it will not solve the larger problem. Yes, those folks will probably go find better jobs (until there is a glut of engineers,,, which could happen) - but other folks will slide in to Subway and start putting them $5 footlongs together. Somebody is going to be standing there with poly gloves on, and that person is not going to have health insurance. Making health care affordable for the folks that need it is what the Affordable Care Act is all about.
Right now the working poor 'mooch' free health care off of the rest of us. They ignore symptoms 'til they drop, then go to the ER and get treatment they can't pay for - then we all pay for it. I find it hilarious that the folks who always bring up that "50% don't pay taxes" lie (and it is a lie) are the same ones who don't want this system set up to help the working poor pay for their care.0 -
The topic of the post was "Obamacare" - so people on public assistance are not what we're talking about here. The Medicaid system for those folks is a longstanding program.
So what about this?{{snip}}
The fact that anybody can make it if they work hard does not necessarily mean that everyone can make it. Somebody has to make the sandwiches. Mathematically, somebody will always be in the bottom 10% - that's just how percentages work. The question is, how miserable shall we allow laissez-faire capitalism to make those people on the bottom? Can we do anything about it? Should we?
{{snip}}
Yes, you are right. Someone will always be in the bottom 10%, however, the expectation(hope) would be that those individuals would take the opportunities this country provides everyone to better their situation and rise from that situation. This country does have many programs in place that cater to the poor such as food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid(free healthcare) and many others. Of course there are individuals who genuinely need these service and for that reason I believe it is right that the services exist, however, I have personally witnessed the abuse of these services by a significant population. Poverty rates have not significantly dropped in over 40 years. Is that because welfare has created a "culture of proverty"? Income taxes are only paid by the top 50% of the population so to increasingly burden those same tax payers when the bottom 50% have no skin in the game and when there has been no appreciable decline in proverty rates over the last 40 years, to me, is unjust.
Gotta go. I'll need to continue the fun another day. Have a good one.
Subway is not going anywhere. Papa John's pizza is not going anywhere. Walmart is not going anywhere. The folks who work there do not have health insurance,,, or if they do the Co. pays such a tiny piece of the cost that nobody can actually use it (you can get paid in dollars, OR in insurance, your choice - I know people who make this choice). These are the folks who the ACA is all about. Right now they have no insurance, so they use lots of robitussin and just pray they don't get really sick. When they do get sick they go to the ER, get treated, and walk out with a $3,500 bill they can't pay. This is what Obamacare is trying to fix.
Your answer to everything is hard work and education - but understand this: If every person working at Subway goes out and gets an engineering degree, it will not solve the larger problem. Yes, those folks will probably go find better jobs (until there is a glut of engineers,,, which could happen) - but other folks will slide in to Subway and start putting them $5 footlongs together. Somebody is going to be standing there with poly gloves on, and that person is not going to have health insurance. Making health care affordable for the folks that need it is what the Affordable Care Act is all about.
Right now the working poor 'mooch' free health care off of the rest of us. They ignore symptoms 'til they drop, then go to the ER and get treatment they can't pay for - then we all pay for it. I find it hilarious that the folks who always bring up that "50% don't pay taxes" lie (and it is a lie) are the same ones who don't want this system set up to help the working poor pay for their care.
Yes. Exactly. And the working poor aren't the real mooches. The real mooches are the companies that keep them too poor to take care of themselves.0 -
I know that Mara,,, just speaking to my audience.0
-
More of a reason to live in a capitalist country. The harder you work, the more successful you can become.0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
And since we're trading sob stories: I was brought up in a housing project, single mom, youngest of 4. My mother managed to get a Master's degree, which she needed to get a job, while we were on public assistance (welfare). She then managed to buy a house and get us out of the projects. Currently, of the 4 kids, 3 of us have Master's degrees (the fourth opted to make a killing in finance). After my Master's, I was accepted into a fully paid PhD program at a first tier school. I left to go make a killing in consulting.
Yes, our experiences shape our perspectives. And if my family hadn't had welfare - also not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution - to fall back on, who knows how differently things would have worked out. The government was there to support us when we needed it, and I will always be grateful. And I would not presume to take it away from others. I would also like those people to have healthcare, even if they can't afford to pay for it themselves. I'm just kooky that way.
Add to its being stupidly expensive, the health insurance industry has a habit of shirking its half of the contract, and refuses to accept the risk that its whole purpose is to underwrite. So yes, it needs to be regulated. (Well, I think earlier I said it needs to be abolished, which would be better. But I'll take what I can get.)
Good for your mom and your family. If anything your story again reinforces my thinking in that this country already provides ample assistance to those families who need it and helps them on their way to being self sufficient, if they take advantage of the opportunities they have. That is how the system should be used, however, there are many examples where families are on public assistance generation after generation and there in lies the problem. If the assistance is provided without proper regulation, individuals will abuse the system which stigmatizes those individuals who truly need the assistance and is an unnecessary burden for the tax payer who is paying for the services.
Currently those on public assistance do have healthcare(Medicaid) and no I am not proposing getting rid of Welfare, just to be clear. I do agree there needs to be changes in Healthcare. I just don't think the government take over of the industry is the answer.0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
Even if that were true and personality and intelligence didn't factor in, unless we all want to scrub every public toilet and mop every bathroom floor before we use it, as well as put in time at the sewage treatment plant, on garbage disposal duty, and all those other jobs, we need people to work them. Therefore, to not pay them a decent wage is basically to enslave them, to use them as things and not treat them as human beings.
You might have had a point if this were 1912, however, it's 2012 and nobody is being held against there will to work the less desirable jobs. If someone doesn't like what the job entails, there are many alternative jobs they can pick from. Also, if a job is that undesirable, the labor market will adjust its price point for that job. McDonalds had to raise its starting salaries not because the job got any more difficult but because they were having a hard time filling positions due to the stigma of working at the golden arches. The supply of individuals willing to work their for minimum wage dropped. To overcome the lower supply they had to increase the demand for its job by raising its salary. You can replace "McDonalds" with any other undesirable job and you can see why the most undesirable jobs typically are not the lowest paying jobs, for example sanitation workers. Everyone will clean toilets and bathroom floors for a price. What that price is is different for everyone.0 -
Casper0,
I agree that healthcare needs to be overhauled so that more individuals are able to afford healthcare but ACA is using a sledgehammer when a scalpel is needed.
Just so we are on the same page, there was a study done by the cato institute, which I will provide the link to later, that states the number of involuntarily uninsured to be at just under 11M people. This number is for the population between 18-64 because the income threshold for qualifying your child for Medicaid is fairly high and the elderly over 64 qualify for Medicare. Of the 11M involuntarily uninsured, a little over 3M are not citizens(both legal and illegal). This leaves us with roughly 8M "working poor" which is around 3% of the population. ACA intends to spend close to $1 trillion dollars in 6 years to insure these 8M "working poor" which comes out to around $160B/year(10 years of taxes/6 years of benefits). Doesn't the solution seem extreme?
Half the cost of ACA is going to be covered by $500B in supposed savings to Medicare. Not only is the real cost of ACA going to exceed $160B/year but we are lead to believe that the government will all of a sudden be fiscally responsible in the implementation of ACA and in the cost cutting of Medicare. We all know this not to be true so then what is the end result. We continue to run extreme budget deficits to cover the cost of healthcare in addition to the already insane budget deficits we are running. Our debt has already eclipsed 100% of our GDP. In 10 years it could be 150% of GDP. Greece is in flames with debt at just over 160% of GDP and yet the US continues on the same trajectory.
Healthcare needs help but ACA is not the answer. It only pushes us closer to a financial calamity.0 -
I've been reading Cato for years. They have never, ever, ever thought the government was right about anything. I'm certain this study is evenhanded and fair. "Fair and balanced" even...
The CBO doesn't see it that way, and the CBO was a non partisan body getting stuff right for Dems and Reps long before Cato was even a murmur in Charles Koch's poisoned little heart.0 -
Actually most of Africa is a Libertarian paradise. Minimal government, no EPA, no OSHA, almost no taxes, no interference with private enterprise. Lew Rockwell's ideal structure for running a country is alive and well and working beautifully, in Rwanda.
More of a reason to live in a capitalist country. The harder you work, the more successful you can become.0 -
Actually most of Africa is a Libertarian paradise. Minimal government, no EPA, no OSHA, almost no taxes, no interference with private enterprise. Lew Rockwell's ideal structure for running a country is alive and well and working beautifully, in Rwanda.
More of a reason to live in a capitalist country. The harder you work, the more successful you can become.
What about Somalia--weak central government, strong religious influence -- and everyone has a gun.0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
Even if that were true and personality and intelligence didn't factor in, unless we all want to scrub every public toilet and mop every bathroom floor before we use it, as well as put in time at the sewage treatment plant, on garbage disposal duty, and all those other jobs, we need people to work them. Therefore, to not pay them a decent wage is basically to enslave them, to use them as things and not treat them as human beings.
You might have had a point if this were 1912, however, it's 2012 and nobody is being held against there will to work the less desirable jobs. If someone doesn't like what the job entails, there are many alternative jobs they can pick from. Also, if a job is that undesirable, the labor market will adjust its price point for that job. McDonalds had to raise its starting salaries not because the job got any more difficult but because they were having a hard time filling positions due to the stigma of working at the golden arches. The supply of individuals willing to work their for minimum wage dropped. To overcome the lower supply they had to increase the demand for its job by raising its salary. You can replace "McDonalds" with any other undesirable job and you can see why the most undesirable jobs typically are not the lowest paying jobs, for example sanitation workers. Everyone will clean toilets and bathroom floors for a price. What that price is is different for everyone.
Do you truly believe that if everyone had a PhD in engineering, we would all have jobs? Again. Someone must scrub the toilets. How you feel about their life choices does not give society the right to treat those people as disposable and unworthy of decent healthcare and a decent standard of living.0 -
Rep. Allen West Says Americans Should Be Mandated To Buy A Glock 9mm Handgun Or Be Taxed
July 3, 2012
By Kimberley Johnson
Rep. Allen West (R-FLA) suggests that if Americans are required to buy health insurance, they should also be required to purchase a Glock 9mm handgun.
At a campaign rally in Florida on Sunday, he said that it was “unconscionable” that SCOTUS upheld the health insurance mandate.
West: “What will be next?” “If you don’t buy a certain type of green card, they will tax you. If you don’t buy a certain type of food, they will tax you.”
“Well, I got a great idea, I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one.”
So basically, what West advocates is being armed and to be prepared for violent action. His question about how the liberals would feel proves that he is viewing this health insurance mandate as a call to war. An “us against them” mentality. His veiled message is quite clear: Be prepared to shoot anyone who does not take on the Republican ideology.
An ABC news article cites a poll by Kaiser Family Foundation that 56 percent of respondents say they would prefer the opponents to Obamacare stop efforts to block the law and move on to other issues.
Show me ONE Democratic politician suggesting that women should arm themselves with weapons because of the blatant attack on women’s rights. Or one suggesting that people who have been out of work and can’t afford health insurance should get a gun as a way to send a message to the GOP to get busy creating some kind of job bill.
The message sent is violent. Conservatives have always been able to march in lockstep. They follow the leader without thought or any questioning. Consider this when voting.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/03/rep-allen-west-says-americans-should-be-mandated-to-buy-a-glock-9mm-handgun-or-be-taxed/0 -
I don't read Allen West's comment as a call to violence, I read it as a poke at anyone who is left of his politics in the very mistaken belief that everyone who is hates guns and wants to ban gun ownership.0
-
Same here. We can't fight right their lies with lies of our own,,, it's wrong, and it won't work. West is a crank and probably a sociopath, but he didn't mean that 9mm wisecrack way that writer took it.I don't read Allen West's comment as a call to violence, I read it as a poke at anyone who is left of his politics in the very mistaken belief that everyone who is hates guns and wants to ban gun ownership.0 -
As a liberal I just want to go on record and state that this is utterly unacceptable. I would never ever own a Glock 9mm.
“Well, I got a great idea, I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one.”
My M1911 .45 ACP has twice the stopping power and was made in the USA.0 -
As a liberal I just want to go on record and state that this is utterly unacceptable. I would never ever own a Glock 9mm.
“Well, I got a great idea, I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you don’t do it, we’ll tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one.”
My M1911 .45 ACP has twice the stopping power and was made in the USA.
:laugh: Beggers can't be choosers, though. I'm too broke right now to afford firearms and ammo, I think I'll write him a nice letter promising to comply with his gun ownership push if the government will simply offer me a no interest loan and reasonable payments on weapon, ammunition, and classes.0 -
Same here. We can't fight right their lies with lies of our own,,, it's wrong, and it won't work. West is a crank and probably a sociopath, but he didn't mean that 9mm wisecrack way that writer took it.I don't read Allen West's comment as a call to violence, I read it as a poke at anyone who is left of his politics in the very mistaken belief that everyone who is hates guns and wants to ban gun ownership.
It always sounds bad become conservatives have NO sense of humor--when then try to make jokes, it always sounds creepy. Unfortunately, the twitterverse must have a continuous feed of outrage--faux or otherwise--in order to survive. Umbrage seems to be the ultimate renewable resource.0 -
Oh wait, I thought of a way to be even more of a total *kitten*:
I'll then default on the loan and tell him he can have my gun when he pries it from my cold dead fingers!0 -
Just to address one point you made, Alpha2Omega:
Just because it's easy to find someone for the position you're trying to fill doesn't give you the right to pay them less than a living wage that will allow them to have healthcare, a decent place to live, food for themselves and their kids, enough to save a little for the future, and a few comforts.
There is a minimum wage under which we should not allow corporations in society to go, and it is not the minimum wage we currently have. There are people who bust their butts full time and still need foodstamps because their pay is so low. Who pays for those foodstamps? The taxpayers. Why should corporations be allowed to use people's labor and not pay them enough to sustain themselves and their families?
Maria,
That is a great point and question, however,( and you may not agree) the reason the "market" should dictate wages and not government is because every single person in the country has the ability to further their skillset through training or further education. Yes a person cleaning rooms will not be able to support a family on that income, however, if that same person went to school to become, lets say, a dental hygenist that person would have an average salary of over $60K/ year. This training can be accomplished in less than two years. Low income individuals would qualify for grants and or loans so their is no reason it can not be done. This country provides endless possibilities for those who want to better their lives. Unfortunately, it requires work to be put in by that individual, something that has been continually undermined by the left. The answer is not government. The answer is personal responsibility. Just so you don't think that I am just repeating what I've read, my mother had a high school education when I was born. She had no help and was raising me by herself. She struggled and continued her education and eventually became a registered nurse after years of part time schooling. It was very difficult for her, however, all her hard work has paid off. Our experiences definitely shape our perspectives.
Even if that were true and personality and intelligence didn't factor in, unless we all want to scrub every public toilet and mop every bathroom floor before we use it, as well as put in time at the sewage treatment plant, on garbage disposal duty, and all those other jobs, we need people to work them. Therefore, to not pay them a decent wage is basically to enslave them, to use them as things and not treat them as human beings.
You might have had a point if this were 1912, however, it's 2012 and nobody is being held against there will to work the less desirable jobs. If someone doesn't like what the job entails, there are many alternative jobs they can pick from. Also, if a job is that undesirable, the labor market will adjust its price point for that job. McDonalds had to raise its starting salaries not because the job got any more difficult but because they were having a hard time filling positions due to the stigma of working at the golden arches. The supply of individuals willing to work their for minimum wage dropped. To overcome the lower supply they had to increase the demand for its job by raising its salary. You can replace "McDonalds" with any other undesirable job and you can see why the most undesirable jobs typically are not the lowest paying jobs, for example sanitation workers. Everyone will clean toilets and bathroom floors for a price. What that price is is different for everyone.
Do you truly believe that if everyone had a PhD in engineering, we would all have jobs? Again. Someone must scrub the toilets. How you feel about their life choices does not give society the right to treat those people as disposable and unworthy of decent healthcare and a decent standard of living.
I never said everyone had to have a PHD in anything. You were talking about a livable wage. That can be accomplished without a PHD or even college, for that matter. Someone will always scrub the toilets because there will always be a demand for that job at a specific wage point. I never said I look at anyone as disposable or unworthy. Their choices are their's alone. I agree healthcare should and can be made much more affordable. We differ on how that should be accomplished.0 -
I've been reading Cato for years. They have never, ever, ever thought the government was right about anything. I'm certain this study is evenhanded and fair. "Fair and balanced" even...
The CBO doesn't see it that way, and the CBO was a non partisan body getting stuff right for Dems and Reps long before Cato was even a murmur in Charles Koch's poisoned little heart.
The CBO updated ACA price tag. The CBO can only make projections based on the information provided to them by politicians. It is true that the cost of ACA was initially $900B, but that was with only 6 years of implementation. The true cost will be almost twice as much when implemented for a decade.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html0
