Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 07-01-2012, 02:00 PM  
Member

Massillon, Ohio
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 49 | Kudos: +13
What I don't get on the whole thing is this.. If the Uninsured are such a burden on the health care industry, then why treat them? So if they cannot afford insurance, there is medicaid and those programs already in place, right? If they are too lazy to get on these programs, they shouldn't get accepted in a hospital or DR unless they can pay up front. That's what those programs were for originally, right? Just because we have let people nurse off the welfare programs for so long those programs are broke, why should we come out with a new program to let them nurse on? It may sound mean that it comes out as "If they are poor, let them die", but if they are poor, let them get on those help programs!

As for comparing it to the requirement for auto insurance.... I see it as an auto accident injures others besides the one without the insurance, so the driver at fault should be able to pay for the innocent person they hurt. In other words, car insurance protects others from your stupidity. If you don't have health insurance, it only affects you. The argument of it causing inflated prices to those that do pay, that is only because they are treating those that will never pay for their services. That is a simple fix - no insurance or prepayment/credit card to cover it, no services. If you say that isn't fair to put a "price on a life" like that, read my above paragraph - Medicare/Medicaid was to help those people...

IF you say "what of those who work but are part time that do not have a chance for benefits like health ins?", read the first paragraph....
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 03:04 PM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
Many of the poor don't qualify for Medicaid. Here in Missouri if a family of 3 has an income. after housing allowance, of over $234 a month, the adult doesn't qualify. Try living and paying for med care on $234 a month.
__________________

__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 03:50 PM  
Member

Massillon, Ohio
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 49 | Kudos: +13
So we should revise that, and correct it to a more realistic number, instead of bringing out a whole new system to corrupt along with the Medicare/Medicaid we have now.

Or will this new thing obsolete and replace the 2 we have now?
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 04:40 PM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
Obamacare cuts Medicare by $500 billion. don't know if they are relacing that with anything.
__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 05:35 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
It's bad enough to pay tax on a commodity, but a tax on a "non-purchase" is a whole 'nother story.
it is a tax on everyone with rebates on the tax if you purchased health insurance and aren't costing the general public more money by not having health coverage (note: coverage and not insurance)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutlass327 View Post
What I don't get on the whole thing is this.. If the Uninsured are such a burden on the health care industry, then why treat them? So if they cannot afford insurance, there is medicaid and those programs already in place, right? If they are too lazy to get on these programs, they shouldn't get accepted in a hospital or DR unless they can pay up front. That's what those programs were for originally, right? Just because we have let people nurse off the welfare programs for so long those programs are broke, why should we come out with a new program to let them nurse on? It may sound mean that it comes out as "If they are poor, let them die", but if they are poor, let them get on those help programs!
well we aren't monsters, we won't allow our society to revert back like that
__________________
Please help babies...... http://www.intactamerica.org/
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 07:10 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ View Post
it is a tax on everyone with rebates on the tax if you purchased health insurance and aren't costing the general public more money by not having health coverage (note: coverage and not insurance)
And who is going to pay for the rebates? Obamacare is a budget buster and those who are addicted to the nanny-state possibly by no fault on their own are going to vote for Obama (and that's just what he wants). According to the experts Obamacare will significantly increase the deficit and debt in the out years. I wonder what we can expect the "non-purchase" tax to rise to in that era? Now that a "non-purchase" tax has been declared legal there is no control on amount, $600 is just for openers.
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 07:44 PM  
Senior Member

Bristol, Tennessee
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 | Kudos: +48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
And who is going to pay for the rebates? Obamacare is a budget buster and those who are addicted to the nanny-state possibly by no fault on their own are going to vote for Obama (and that's just what he wants). According to the experts Obamacare will significantly increase the deficit and debt in the out years. I wonder what we can expect the "non-purchase" tax to rise to in that era? Now that a "non-purchase" tax has been declared legal there is no control on amount, $600 is just for openers.
and who are your "experts", the CBO or a fox news interviewee?
__________________
Please help babies...... http://www.intactamerica.org/
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 10:32 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
And who is going to pay for the rebates? Obamacare is a budget buster and those who are addicted to the nanny-state possibly by no fault on their own are going to vote for Obama (and that's just what he wants). According to the experts Obamacare will significantly increase the deficit and debt in the out years. I wonder what we can expect the "non-purchase" tax to rise to in that era? Now that a "non-purchase" tax has been declared legal there is no control on amount, $600 is just for openers.
Eddie, here's how it works. The government assesses me a certain tax. Let's say it's an exorbitant $600. Then they give me a rebate of $600. Who pays the rebate?

The answer is that the two cancel out; there is no additional cost to the government for giving this rebate.

The control on the amount of taxation is where it has always been: Congress. They are the ones who decide how and what to tax, and they answer to us.

Basically, your entire reasoning in that post is a non-starter.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2012, 10:33 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutlass327 View Post
So we should revise that, and correct it to a more realistic number, instead of bringing out a whole new system to corrupt along with the Medicare/Medicaid we have now.

Or will this new thing obsolete and replace the 2 we have now?
That's part of it. It should hit those two programs pretty damn hard.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2012, 11:49 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival View Post
Eddie, here's how it works. The government assesses me a certain tax. Let's say it's an exorbitant $600. Then they give me a rebate of $600. Who pays the rebate?

The answer is that the two cancel out; there is no additional cost to the government for giving this rebate.

The control on the amount of taxation is where it has always been: Congress. They are the ones who decide how and what to tax, and they answer to us.

Basically, your entire reasoning in that post is a non-starter.
If it cancels out who paid for the insurance? Why bother if it cancels out? Aren't you missing something in your analysis?
__________________

__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.