Health Care to "control the people"

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's like saying, "I am such a great driver so I don't need no stinking insurance!"
 
5 key things to remember about health care reform - CNN.com

3. You could get a subsidy to buy insurance if you make less than $88,000 per year for a family of four.

Starting in 2014, the health care reform bill provides subsidies for people who don't get insurance from their employers and therefore have to buy it on their own. The size of the subsidy depends on your income, whether you're single or have a family, your age, and where you live.
Here are a few examples:

• A 40-year old individual making $30,000 a year in a medium-cost area of the country will get an $850 subsidy toward buying a policy, which should cost about $3,500, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation subsidy calculator.

• A 40-year-old in the same city who has a family of four and is making $60,000 will get a $4,220 subsidy toward a policy that costs $9,435.
Click to expand...

You can estimate your own subsidy by using the Kaiser subsidy calculator
 
TXgolfer said:
Nope not close at all.
Click to expand...
Yup. There's no way one could read something like the Federalist Papers and think "Yeah, I think people who ratified the Constitution would be cool with all this." No way. If we want to mandate insurance, we should amend the Constitution. Luckily for own good, the "anointed" have effectively done that for us so we don't have to go through the messy procedure as outlined in article 5.

Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed does a great job explaining the mentality behind this whole thing. Here's a quote:

...such surrogates not only lack the detailed and direct knowledge of the innumerable circumstances surrounding each of the millions of individuals whose decisions they are preempting, they lack the incentives of direct gain and loss from being right or wrong, and they have every incentive to persist in mistaken policies (from which they suffer little), rather than admit to being wrong (from which they could suffer much).
Click to expand...
It's just a matter of time before things start going wrong and rather than admitting this was a bad idea, they'll be calling for more government intervention. Welcome to utopia!
 
Jiro said:
why require us to have one when we don't need/want it? isn't it better if the government manages the tax money better so that it can provide such access without depending on us?
Click to expand...

Because not having it is one of the primary mechanisms by which health care costs continue to rise making it more difficult for all of society. Individual decision has an effect on the collective whole. Having a cultural backgorund that includes a more collective perspective, I'm certain that you can understand that premise, and agree that it does have validity.
 
netrox said:
It's like saying, "I am such a great driver so I don't need no stinking insurance!"
Click to expand...

the major difference is.... when I drive... I am responsible for other people as the result of the consequence of my action (driver error).

In health care - I am responsible only for myself.
 
Jiro said:
the major difference is.... when I drive... I am responsible for other people as the result of the consequence of my action (driver error).

In health care - I am responsible only for myself.
Click to expand...

Not quite true when you look at the results of health care that affect the others in your life, as well as society as a whole.
 
jillio said:
Not quite true when you look at the results of health care that affect the others in your life, as well as society as a whole.
Click to expand...

the mourning, depression, and such due to my death? eh. I guess I wasn't coddled at birth :dunno:
 
Jiro said:
the mourning? eh. I guess I wasn't coddled at birth :dunno:
Click to expand...

Mourning? I am not sure what you mean. Mind clarifying? I doubt seriously that society as a whole would mourn your death, lol.
 
darkdog said:
Yup. There's no way one could read something like the Federalist Papers and think "Yeah, I think people who ratified the Constitution would be cool with all this." No way. If we want to mandate insurance, we should amend the Constitution. Luckily for own good, the "anointed" have effectively done that for us so we don't have to go through the messy procedure as outlined in article 5.

Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Anointed does a great job explaining the mentality behind this whole thing. Here's a quote:


It's just a matter of time before things start going wrong and rather than admitting this was a bad idea, they'll be calling for more government intervention. Welcome to utopia!
Click to expand...

Exactly.....They are already hedging their bets with "not perfect". That is why I hope the GOP doesn't take the 2010 mid terms.....I don't want there to be any excuses when this tanks. We can save it in 2012 before it gets too bad.
 
Txgolfer, 2010 would be the crucial time needed (the next two years) to repeal this unconstitutional health care bill before 2012 if we get enough seats. As sentiments grow so do the chances of seeing Democrats lose their seats.
 
TXgolfer said:
Exactly.....They are already hedging their bets with "not perfect". That is why I hope the GOP doesn't take the 2010 mid terms.....I don't want there to be any excuses when this tanks. We can save it in 2012 before it gets too bad.
Click to expand...

Interesting view! :hmm:
 
Secretblend said:
Interesting view! :hmm:
Click to expand...

It is a little different. My thinking has been, and I posted this a month ago, it is better to let this run it's course, fail and repair than to stop it mid run and risk the chance that we will end up trying it again.
 
Make sense. Let it show it really is a failure instead of wondering if it could have worked or not.
 
TXgolfer said:
Exactly.....They are already hedging their bets with "not perfect". That is why I hope the GOP doesn't take the 2010 mid terms.....I don't want there to be any excuses when this tanks. We can save it in 2012 before it gets too bad.
Click to expand...
No matter what happens, there will always be an excuse. There will always be someone to blame and demagogue. They blamed Republicans when Republicans were at their weakest point in generations. When Democrats pull the "not perfect" card, we need to remind them that they're the ones that rushed through a massively complex bill with huge implications before anyone could really understand it. We're the ones who said it wouldn't work as advertised. When Republicans are in power and Democrats blame Republicans for messing it up, we need to point out that we were the ones that said it would be a bad idea to hand over this much control to the government regardless of which side is in power.

They have a worldview to protect dammit- one that pits them as the enlightened and us as the benighted who need them to save us from ourselves. They're not going to let reality and facts get in the way of such a flattering vision of themselves.
 
TXgolfer said:
Exactly.....They are already hedging their bets with "not perfect". That is why I hope the GOP doesn't take the 2010 mid terms.....I don't want there to be any excuses when this tanks. We can save it in 2012 before it gets too bad.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight. Name the last GOP sponsored legislation that was "perfect." That is something to strive for, but also something that is rarely achieved.
 
TXgolfer said:
It is a little different. My thinking has been, and I posted this a month ago, it is better to let this run it's course, fail and repair than to stop it mid run and risk the chance that we will end up trying it again.
Click to expand...

Allowing it to run its course could cost us trillions of dollars extra along with interest which will further drain the U.S. economy even more. Not only that but tramples the people's right to choose their own insurance whether it's govt or private. This health care requirement will simply devastate small/med sized businesses putting many of them out of business. Do we really want that?
 
And it could prove to be a success, which will leave a lot of naysaying ADers in the position of eating their words.:laugh2:
 
kokonut said:
Allowing it to run its course could cost us trillions of dollars extra along with interest which will further drain the U.S. economy even more. Not only that but tramples the people's right to choose their own insurance whether it's govt or private. This health care requirement will simply devastate small/med sized businesses putting many of them out of business. Do we really want that?
Click to expand...

No......I am thinking we would see enough damage by 2012 to be convincing. I hope the mandate is ruled out by the SC. That would help a bunch
 
jillio said:
And it could prove to be a success, which will leave a lot of naysaying ADers in the position of eating their words.:laugh2:
Click to expand...

:lol: I certainly hope it will turn out for best but right now - I'm not very thrilled about mandatory insurance. well too late now. they passed it. now we're all together in the boat with holes so it's best we all row the boat together to the nearest island and see what happens in the end instead of bickering while the boat's sinking.

:fruit:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top