- LovingKayla
- 04-01-2013, 10:42 AM
I truly don't understand the reasoning that says healthcare is a RIGHT. How do you FORCE someone to do something for someone else? I mean it'd be great if all those doctors that spent 20 years in school and indebted for 100's of thousands of dollars, just volunteered their time to take care of folks.... but... Forcing folks to do shit is socialist and communist. Saying healthcare is a right does not make sense in a free country. I don't want the government teet anywhere close to me, much less in my healthcare. The way they are trying to do it says, I HAVE to join and the DOCTORS HAVE to treat me. Ommmm.... where does this make sense? Didn't we fight the cold war over shit like this? Communism doesn't work the way you think. Everyone does not get concierge service or 100$ cigars, or a beach house in the hamptons. Everyone would get the bare flat minimum. F.U.C.K. T.H.A.T. What if I want more and am willing to work for it? The gov just takes it away to give to someone else? NO WAY MAN. But I am willing to try and understand from a reasonable point, why do you believe healthcare is a RIGHT?
- WTF
- 04-01-2013, 11:03 AM
God Damn, we already had Medicare. You one of the ignorant Tea 'tards that want the government out of your Medicare? Btw by your definition, all taxes are commie.
- LovingKayla
- 04-01-2013, 01:23 PM
That doesn't answer the question.
Could I please just get a straight reply?
Could I please just get a straight reply?
- WTF
- 04-01-2013, 01:36 PM
That doesn't answer the question.Nothing is a right. It really is one of the Pollyanna type questions. Do you have a right to be save from getting shot in a movie theater? Do kids have a right to go to school and not get shot? The factual answer to all these questions is no. You are in charge of your rights. So quit your bitching and conspiracy theories and make yourself happy. Nobody can do that but you. You and your Tea Farts are a stinker at a pretty damn good party. You can always move to your bunker if that is what will make you happy but asking dumbass questions on a hooker board seems like a lesson in futility. Now go enjoy your right to preach hate towards the Muslims!
Could I please just get a straight reply? Originally Posted by LovingKayla
- LovingKayla
- 04-01-2013, 01:38 PM
The bunker isn't finished yet.
- bojulay
- 04-01-2013, 01:54 PM
Health care in this country is very controlled by big business.
In a lot of other countries they start with herbal and homeopathic
remedies first and only resort to the use of manufactured drugs
as a last resort, we start and end with the drugs.
So many people that immigrate to this country switch to the American
diet and lifestyle when they get here, and start having the same health problems
that we do.
Big business wins coming and going, they produce the cheap garbage foods,
and the expensive drugs and procedures to try and cure us from having ingested it
all our lives.
As always follow the money.
In a lot of other countries they start with herbal and homeopathic
remedies first and only resort to the use of manufactured drugs
as a last resort, we start and end with the drugs.
So many people that immigrate to this country switch to the American
diet and lifestyle when they get here, and start having the same health problems
that we do.
Big business wins coming and going, they produce the cheap garbage foods,
and the expensive drugs and procedures to try and cure us from having ingested it
all our lives.
As always follow the money.
- Yssup Rider
- 04-01-2013, 07:43 PM
another brilliant rant from HK.
"Forcing folks to do shit is both socialist and communist."
LMAO!
Ignorant biyatch!
"Forcing folks to do shit is both socialist and communist."
LMAO!
Ignorant biyatch!
- PaulFinley
- 04-01-2013, 08:08 PM
It's not just Democrats. According to the law any clinician has to treat anybody who show up with an emergency conditon. I don't like manditory health insurance but I agree that no one should be denied treatment when they need it. The law also says everyone has a right to an attorney if they need it also.
- WTF
- 04-01-2013, 08:57 PM
It's not just Democrats. According to the law any clinician has to treat anybody who show up with an emergency conditon. I don't like manditory health insurance but I agree that no one should be denied treatment when they need it. The law also says everyone has a right to an attorney if they need it also. Originally Posted by PaulFinleyDon't confuse the Joe McCarthy type's with facts!
- i'va biggen
- 04-01-2013, 09:30 PM
- wellendowed1911
- 04-01-2013, 09:34 PM
I truly don't understand the reasoning that says healthcare is a RIGHT. How do you FORCE someone to do something for someone else? I mean it'd be great if all those doctors that spent 20 years in school and indebted for 100's of thousands of dollars, just volunteered their time to take care of folks.... but... Forcing folks to do shit is socialist and communist. Saying healthcare is a right does not make sense in a free country. I don't want the government teet anywhere close to me, much less in my healthcare. The way they are trying to do it says, I HAVE to join and the DOCTORS HAVE to treat me. Ommmm.... where does this make sense? Didn't we fight the cold war over shit like this? Communism doesn't work the way you think. Everyone does not get concierge service or 100$ cigars, or a beach house in the hamptons. Everyone would get the bare flat minimum. F.U.C.K. T.H.A.T. What if I want more and am willing to work for it? The gov just takes it away to give to someone else? NO WAY MAN. But I am willing to try and understand from a reasonable point, why do you believe healthcare is a RIGHT? Originally Posted by LovingKaylaKayla why is it when I work I pay taxes- I am 100% sure that when clients see you- Uncle Sam doesn't get a penny of your money. Kayla if God forbid you discovered you have cancer tomorrow- I assume you would want to be treated- do you know how much that would cost? If your salary couldn't afford the Hospital fees and treatment should they refuse you and let you die? I am a Pharmacist by profession and those Chemo drugs are not cheap- so should the govt not provide you any assistance? I would really like to know your rationale? Didn't Jesus teach Love thy neighbor as you love thyself? You were boasting a few days ago how you are this so called Christian? Did Jesus let the poor and sick die? Didn't Jesus heal the very sick who probably would have died due to lack of treatment and their social standards?
It amazes me how you fucking Tea-partiers claimed to be so God- fearing and Christian yet you have no qualms about those who are less fortunate die- all because monetary reasons.
As WTF just alluded to- why should people who have no children be forced to pay taxes for school? How about people who have no cars- yet they pay for roads and highways?
- CuteOldGuy
- 04-01-2013, 10:09 PM
WE is quoting Jesus to support a government program? You're stupider than I thought, WE. Please quote a single verse where Jesus says we are to demand ANYTHING, anything at all, from government.
- willdooit
- 04-01-2013, 10:37 PM
I don't know if its a right but it a humane thing to do. We the tax payers are going to pay one way or another county Hospitals are paid by taxes, now if we all had affordable health care we see a doctor in a clinic instead of an expensive hospital.
- WTF
- 04-01-2013, 10:57 PM
I don't know if its a right but it a humane thing to do. We the tax payers are going to pay one way or another county Hospitals are paid by taxes, now if we all had affordable health care we see a doctor in a clinic instead of an expensive hospital. Originally Posted by willdooit@yahoo.comDon't confuse them with the facts!
- CuteOldGuy
- 04-01-2013, 11:34 PM
Who is going to provide affordable health care? Not Obama, that's for sure.
Let’s put aside for a minute that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, adds $6.2 trillion in debt, piles on countless new taxes, and has already racked up $31 billion and 71.5 million hours in regulatory compliance costs. Yes, that’s a lot to put aside. But for just a moment assume the role of a liberal with an entitlement mentality. For a law with enormous riches and political capital invested in it, wouldn’t you expect it to at least function on its most basic level consistent with its namesake? In other words, you would expect for the Affordable Care Act to provide affordable coverage.
The latest of ObamaCare’s fundamental flaws to be euphemistically reported as a “glitch” that needs to be “tweaked” is its failure to provide affordable family coverage for a broad group of employees. As a result, Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 3.9 million family dependents may not be able to afford employer-sponsored family coverage or receive subsidized coverage on an ObamaCare exchange.
Understanding the family glitch requires a quick primer on the byzantine regulatory structure governing Obamacare’s subsidies:
— Employers must offer coverage meeting a number of requirements to full-time employees to avoid the pay or play penalties (see here for examples).
— The affordability component of the employer pay or play rules requires that the employee share of the premium for self-only coverage not exceed 9.5% of the employee’s income.
— Employees whose family income is under 400% of the federal poverty line ($94,200 for a family of four) generally are eligible for subsidized coverage on the ObamaCare exchange.
— However, employees who are eligible for affordable employer-sponsored coverage are not eligible for the ObamaCare exchange subsidies.
— The problem is that coverage is considered affordable if the self-only cost of coverage does not exceed 9.5% of the employee’s income. There is no such cost limiting requirement for family coverage. The IRS recently confirmed this glitch by re-finalizing the ObamaCare exchange subsidy regulations with a new example to highlight the flaw.
So here’s the predictable scenario: Employer offers affordable coverage for employees (i.e., an employee’s share of the premium is less than 9.5% of his income), but the employer does not contribute any amount toward the additional premium to cover the employee’s family dependents. Premiums for ObamaCare-approved coverage will increase significantly in 2014, which means that an employee’s added cost to cover his spouse and children will be enormous. There is no penalty to the employer for not contributing toward the family coverage — all that matters is that the employer offers affordable self-only coverage.
The “glitch” is that the employee in this scenario cannot instead choose to purchase affordable family coverage on the (likely even more expensive) ObamaCare exchange. Why? Because the employee is eligible for affordable self-only coverage offered by his employer. The fact that the employer’s family coverage is unaffordable is irrelevant for purposes of the determination that the employee is not eligible for the ObamaCare exchange subsidies (and good luck to anyone who has to pony up the full cost of so-called Qualified Health Plan (QHP) ObamaCare exchange coverage without the premium tax credit). The end result is that the employee is left with no affordable family coverage option.
(Not confused yet? Check out this flowchart by Sarah Kliff from the Washington Post’s Wonkblog for a more complete exercise in this regulatory morasse.)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is an interesting politician. On one hand, he should be commended for making principled decisions against the party line to support the Paul Ryan Medicare proposal and to stand with Rand. He has also been the most vocal member of Congress on this family glitch issue. But he’s still a liberal, and his call for expanded government subsidies to address the glitch is not the answer.
The clear response should be that if despite unprecedented levels of federal government intrusion, spending, and taxation, ObamaCare can’t even remotely achieve its core purpose to make coverage affordable for families, then the whole system needs to be replaced. In other words, recognize that government-driven health care just does not work.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...glitch-exposed
Let’s put aside for a minute that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, adds $6.2 trillion in debt, piles on countless new taxes, and has already racked up $31 billion and 71.5 million hours in regulatory compliance costs. Yes, that’s a lot to put aside. But for just a moment assume the role of a liberal with an entitlement mentality. For a law with enormous riches and political capital invested in it, wouldn’t you expect it to at least function on its most basic level consistent with its namesake? In other words, you would expect for the Affordable Care Act to provide affordable coverage.
The latest of ObamaCare’s fundamental flaws to be euphemistically reported as a “glitch” that needs to be “tweaked” is its failure to provide affordable family coverage for a broad group of employees. As a result, Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 3.9 million family dependents may not be able to afford employer-sponsored family coverage or receive subsidized coverage on an ObamaCare exchange.
Understanding the family glitch requires a quick primer on the byzantine regulatory structure governing Obamacare’s subsidies:
— Employers must offer coverage meeting a number of requirements to full-time employees to avoid the pay or play penalties (see here for examples).
— The affordability component of the employer pay or play rules requires that the employee share of the premium for self-only coverage not exceed 9.5% of the employee’s income.
— Employees whose family income is under 400% of the federal poverty line ($94,200 for a family of four) generally are eligible for subsidized coverage on the ObamaCare exchange.
— However, employees who are eligible for affordable employer-sponsored coverage are not eligible for the ObamaCare exchange subsidies.
— The problem is that coverage is considered affordable if the self-only cost of coverage does not exceed 9.5% of the employee’s income. There is no such cost limiting requirement for family coverage. The IRS recently confirmed this glitch by re-finalizing the ObamaCare exchange subsidy regulations with a new example to highlight the flaw.
So here’s the predictable scenario: Employer offers affordable coverage for employees (i.e., an employee’s share of the premium is less than 9.5% of his income), but the employer does not contribute any amount toward the additional premium to cover the employee’s family dependents. Premiums for ObamaCare-approved coverage will increase significantly in 2014, which means that an employee’s added cost to cover his spouse and children will be enormous. There is no penalty to the employer for not contributing toward the family coverage — all that matters is that the employer offers affordable self-only coverage.
The “glitch” is that the employee in this scenario cannot instead choose to purchase affordable family coverage on the (likely even more expensive) ObamaCare exchange. Why? Because the employee is eligible for affordable self-only coverage offered by his employer. The fact that the employer’s family coverage is unaffordable is irrelevant for purposes of the determination that the employee is not eligible for the ObamaCare exchange subsidies (and good luck to anyone who has to pony up the full cost of so-called Qualified Health Plan (QHP) ObamaCare exchange coverage without the premium tax credit). The end result is that the employee is left with no affordable family coverage option.
(Not confused yet? Check out this flowchart by Sarah Kliff from the Washington Post’s Wonkblog for a more complete exercise in this regulatory morasse.)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is an interesting politician. On one hand, he should be commended for making principled decisions against the party line to support the Paul Ryan Medicare proposal and to stand with Rand. He has also been the most vocal member of Congress on this family glitch issue. But he’s still a liberal, and his call for expanded government subsidies to address the glitch is not the answer.
The clear response should be that if despite unprecedented levels of federal government intrusion, spending, and taxation, ObamaCare can’t even remotely achieve its core purpose to make coverage affordable for families, then the whole system needs to be replaced. In other words, recognize that government-driven health care just does not work.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...glitch-exposed