O/T: Amazing

Page 5 of 10  
writes:

Nonsense. That what you refer to is communism, not socialism. A common, but really bad misconception.
Obamacare is one possible response to a malfunctioning healthcare insurance system. Any other system that would achieve equitable premiums and equitable risk stratification would be worth looking at. One (just one) of the problems in achieving equitable <fill in> is that people would like to get something for nothing.
"I'm not sick now, why pay for health insurance I don't need?" Fine, but then institute a system where you would get penalized in person if you then do need it. And none of that I'll pay later stuff, or my family or friends will pay. Cash in advance of treatment, and fast.
There is somewhat of an analogy. In some areas, fire protection is by subscription. Sometimes, people with little means cannot afford $50/year (or whatever) to pay. Then, when their trailer catches fire, the fire truck comes and stands by to protect people next door who did pay, and watch the trailer burn out. I believe there was in instance where the firemen even refused to help out when immediate payment of arrears where offered. This type of story is why I think that the municipality should offer fire protection and bill through property taxes for the costs of keeping fire fighting equipment.
Fortunately, medical care that is really needed is provided prior to asking for payment. If there were really compulsory insurance as in some version of Obamacare, those payment problems disappear, and there is no need for collection agencies.
This is not communism, or socialism, but personal responsibility, if necessary enforced. It is similar to not allowing people to go naked across public streets.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seems that is what people who do not have (for whatever reason) insurance are saying. It's too expensive, I'm betting I won't get sick. And I am NOT now saying this is an employee of a big corporation, but perhaps the half-time employee who is not eligible for benefits.

Please reconsider what you just stated. Many have been put in a position that makes them ineligible for health insurance (the costs of benefits is a consideration in hiring part-time rather than full-time employees). So, you are told (as a colleague was), sorry Mike we can't afford to pay you full-time anymore, so please consider doing the same work but getting only half the money, and by the way, no benefits. The only way to get health insurance then is via COBRA, at $1000/mo or so. You'll have to think - if I don't pay, I may never get coverage again, because then I'll have some pre-existing condition.

You are denying the usefulness of insurance? Then it is an installment tax, either pay in full each time you get sick, or pay the weekly installments according to what the actuaries say you'll eventually pay.

Sorry, I was off, it was $75. Just google for this: "fire truck stands by as trailer burns" The first link is <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-happened-again-firefighters-let-home - burn-after-owners-didnt-pay-75-protection-fee/>

I agree. Just plain stupid. But it's indeed a big country.

Sorry, Mike. Here in NJ (07410) the fire equipment is paid for by the municipality, while the firemen are volunteers. I don't know how their training and personal equipment is paid, but there are fundraisers almost year round. Such as this: <http://fairlawn.patch.com/topics/fair+lawn+fire+company+4
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
Do you really believe that "didn't" is the same as "can't afford to"? $75 per *year*? GMAFB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I can believe that a poor family didn't have the $75 to pay the fee when it became due, and then forgot to put it on a priority list to pay. I'm NOT saying these people were smart, but perhaos they did outsmart themselves.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fair enough. Why the crocodile tears? They rolled snake-eyes, so?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


That's a rather biblical remark (that's a denigrating term here). If the parents are too stupid or drunk to take care of their housing, why do their children have to suffer? (Remember, I'm a tax and spend liberal - I believe the fire should have been put out and the parents made to pay, tax or whip).
It's getting late, sorry if I offend.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They shouldn't. The children should be taken out of the home and put into a home where they will be treated as children should be. Then the parents should be thrown in prison for child abuse. Simple. If you want to do something more appropriate to the abusers, we can discuss that too.

This is the Usenet. If that's the most offensive you can be, you don't stand a chance. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Scott Lurndal" wrote:

------------------------------------- Careful Scott, don't want to confuse those with preconceived views with facts.<G>
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:32:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

No family? No friends, or at least none better off than you? To the poorhouse! Which, BTW, was run by the local/county/state government.
Now it's federal. Why? Because the state politicians figured out it was safer to blame taxes on the feds so they wouldn't be responsible.
When I was a child, we had a name for the homeless - we called them "escapees from the insane asylum" - want to go back to that?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

+1
To fix the "problem", first you have to take away the homeless' right to live as they wish.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:16:04 -0400, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Or unfix the fix from a few years ago. Many people were in institutions, but that was deemed harsh and an infringement on rights. It was for some, but others were incapable of caring for themselves and found a worse fate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's the "fix" I was referring to when I said "take away the homeless' right to live as they wish".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Guy in our church has a bumper sticker that says "He who dies with the most toys -- DIES."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 01:37:40 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller

Better bumper sticker. "He who does with the most toys, wins, but he's DEAD ANYWAY!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:23:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"

Roberts brought up the "tax" or penalty of 1% if you have no insurance. If you are in the higher income bracket, you probably have coverage either through your employer or you can afford it.
On the lower end, you have to make a big decision. If you are trying to raise a family on $30k, you can either pay a penalty of $300 or you can buy insurance for maybe $8000 to $12,000.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/29/2012 5:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

And those that can't afford that and or the illegals will still pay nothing resulting in our government going farther into dept. All that at a cost to buy votes form the growing population of the ignorant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The fed govt will pick up the tab for the first 5 yrs, then the burden of cost will be placed on the states, which most are already budget crunching. Managing the system will become a nightmare, I predict, and no one knows what the insurance companies have in store to add to the confusion (and mismanagement?).
Sonny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/29/2012 7:06 AM, Leon wrote:

With the democrats proudly stating that obama is the first president in the last 100 years to place a TAX DIRECTLY ON the LOWEST INCOME PORTION of our population, if they don't buy insurance, this should be an interesting election year.
The obamacare will increase the cost of medical care. The most obvious is the 2.3% increase on medical devices. For those of you who have not read the Federal Register's FDA's GMPs, medical devices are everything associated with the practice of medicine. Everything from band aids to MRI machines. All of the software in every computer used in the monitoring of patients is a medical device. All of the items that the doctor uses when you visit his office or the nurse uses when you visit the clinic. All of the things that a person uses as part of the medicines they use at home, such as the instruments used to monitor sugar, AND the strips used in these machines.
The obamacare create a second government agency, Patient-centered outcomes research, to compete with the current FDA. All of the things it is suppose to be responsible for is currently part of the FDA's approval and review of medical devices and drugs. So now we have to government agencies controlling the medical industry, each with their own paper work and regulations that will add to the cost of the medicine you take.
The cost of all of the new reporting system that are being imposed on the medical industry will also add to the cost.
It is my understand that the basic $100/month medical insurance cost deducted from your social security will go up to over 300 dollars per month under obamacare. Private insurance will either go up or the coverage will be reduced. That is a tripling of your direct medical expenses.
You state taxes will go up as obamacare will try to force the states to expand the money that obamacare says they should spend. Many of the things that the obamacare is placing on the states is not funded by the Federal government and the money will come from the state and local budgets.
We will look back and think the doubling of the national debit since the social democrats took control of Congress in 2006 as the good old days, when the national debit balloons to 20 to 50 trillion dollar range and your state and local government go bankrupt to cover the cost of obamacare.
NOW TELL ME HOW OBAMA CARE WILL REDUCE COST.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, those who can't afford it don't get coverage, they only get a waiver.
But Obamacare adds 20,000 new IRS agents and 140 new gov't agencies and Crom knows what else. Nobody has read the entire 2,471+ pages yet, I don't think. It's 1,147,271 words long.
-- Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing. -- Abraham Lincoln
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Tax the poor. That's a new tactic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.