New Obamacare Prices - Hot off the Press - Liberals Lied about reducing costs

That is the main problem I see everywhere I turn. Nobody knows.
Maybe fighter can tell us. And yes, fighter, it is not going to affect me in anyway other than the taxes which are meh...I just don't like the government trying to force people in to do something they do not want to do. Some call it freedom, liberty.... Originally Posted by nwarounder

Individuals with low and moderate incomes may be eligible for a tax credit, which can be used right away, like a gift card, to reduce their monthly premiums.
__________________

what part of that escapes you ?

its the law, deal with it.

Individuals with low and moderate incomes may be eligible for a tax credit, which can be used right away, like a gift card, to reduce their monthly premiums.
__________________

what part of that escapes you ?

its the law, deal with it. Originally Posted by CJ7

Thanks CJ and sorry I baited you a little. Many of the socialist were claiming this was not socialized medicine and it always helps explain when it comes from one of their own.

Right there it is in black and white, a hand picked group getting other people's tax dollars. Doesn't get more socialist than that.

Please define socialism for us, nwarounder.

Just want to make sure we're all on the same page here.

Please define socialism for us, nwarounder.

Just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Socialism is a theory, there is no one sentence "definition" to fully explain. In simplest terms though for discussion, government regulates commerce in a socialist society as opposed to capitalism, where there is no regulation of commerce by the government.

The act of wealth distribution (communal ownership), or taking from one and giving to another, is also part of the socialist theory, which is what I was referring to here.

Socialism is a theory, there is no one sentence "definition" to fully explain. In simplest terms though for discussion, government regulates commerce in a socialist society as opposed to capitalism, where there is no regulation of commerce by the government.

The act of wealth distribution (communal ownership), or taking from one and giving to another, is also part of the socialist theory, which is what I was referring to here. Originally Posted by nwarounder

surprise ..


http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/443...them%E2%80%A6/

surprise ..


http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/443...them%E2%80%A6/ Originally Posted by CJ7

I agree with a lot in that article. I think if Obama could pick a title it would be "King". But Obamacare obviously distributes wealth as you pointed out.

Wealth distribution is not just part of a socialist theory, it is also part of Marxism, Communism and many more. Communism was actually "started" as a way to redistribute the wealth, but it has such a derogatory meaning in America, I didn't want to call you guys commies for that is only part of the theory.

I agree with a lot in that article. I think if Obama could pick a title it would be "King". But Obamacare obviously distributes wealth as you pointed out.

Wealth distribution is not just part of a socialist theory, it is also part of Marxism, communism and many more. Communism was "started" as a way to redistribute the wealth, but it has such a derogatory meaning in America, I didn't want to call you guys commies for that is only part of the theory. Originally Posted by nwarounder

this "you guys"s a registered independent, so let go of your pecker

this "you guys"s a registered independent, so let go of your pecker Originally Posted by CJ7

Again, socialism is a theory, not necessarily a political party. To be a socialist is to only hold views in support of, i.e, welfare, SS, Obamacare, food stamps, Obamaphones, Medicare/Caid, and so on. I think socialism can work, just not in a Republic or a free society. Eventually the sloths stop working, entitlements become unsustainable, people get pissed off, divided, and....we'll have to see.

Again, socialism is a theory, not necessarily a political party. To be a socialist is to only hold views in support of, i.e, welfare, SS, Obamacare, food stamps, Obamaphones, Medicare/Caid, and so on. I think socialism can work, just not in a Republic or a free society. Eventually the sloths stop working, entitlements become unsustainable, people get pissed off, divided, and....we'll have to see. Originally Posted by nwarounder

in a socialist country everyone works and the government hands out everything the people need to live ,,, aint no theory to it


uncle Webster sez ...


any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

in a socialist country everyone works and the government hands out everything the people need to live ,,, aint no theory to it


uncle Webster sez ...


any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done Originally Posted by CJ7

"any of various economic and political THEORIES"

The definition is, that it is a theory, as I said

"any of various economic and political THEORIES"

The definition is, that it is a theory, as I said Originally Posted by nwarounder

You are taking advantage of Webster's broad definition of socialism. In the USA clearly the means of production is not owned or controlled by the state. If that were true you would not have billionaires like Buffett, Gates, Trump, and Oprah. The prescription drug plan that was implemented by Bush helps seniors pay for their medications. Is this socialist? Let's not forget that Bush was/is a republican. As far as the debt ceiling goes, President Regan, another republican raised the debt ceiling 18 times in two terms. Regan also raised taxes. Was Regan a socialist?

I highly doubt it will effect 30 million people. According to gallup polls, about 30% of Americans do not even know there is a law or don't know anything about it and 33% of the people think it has been repealed. The prices coming in except for your high cost of living areas seem to be staying flat or higher, so if they can't afford health insurance now, they won't be able to afford it October 1st. My guess is you won't be hearing from Obama on October 2nd of how many people signed up the first day either. But we will see. Originally Posted by nwarounder

I'm not seeing or hearing any rush to sign up for an Obamacare policy. As opposed to a Plan D Medicare insurance where there was a mad rush as I signed up both my parents.

Are you nwa?

That said, there's politicians are willing to call something a resounding success even though the evidence isn't there.

You are taking advantage of Webster's broad definition of socialism. In the USA clearly the means of production is not owned or controlled by the state. If that were true you would not have billionaires like Buffett, Gates, Trump, and Oprah. The prescription drug plan that was implemented by Bush helps seniors pay for their medications. Is this socialist? Let's not forget that Bush was/is a republican. As far as the debt ceiling goes, President Regan, another republican raised the debt ceiling 18 times in two terms. Regan also raised taxes. Was Regan a socialist? Originally Posted by flghtr65

Not at all, in my previous post if you would have read, I clearly stated that you cannot define socialism in a one sentence definition. It is a theory, and millions of pages have been written on the subject. As always, I'm not sure where CJ was coming from when he posted the definition. I simply pointed out the definition clearly states that it is a theory.

And of course the prescription plan was a socialist idea incorporated into law. Both dems and repubs alike pass wealth distribution laws all the time.

I'm not seeing or hearing any rush to sign up for an Obamacare policy. As opposed to a Plan D Medicare insurance where there was a mad rush as I signed up both my parents.

Are you nwa?

That said, there's politicians are willing to call something a resounding success even though the evidence isn't there. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Lol, no I will not be signing up on the exchanges, I'm good.

The only people that I have heard from that were dying to rush out and sign up, thought it was free

But I can't wait until tomorrow though to see these 30 million people that have so desperately been waiting to get health insurance, go sign up on the exchanges.

I can explain socialism easier.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Socialism is a theory, there is no one sentence "definition" to fully explain. In simplest terms though for discussion, government regulates commerce in a socialist society as opposed to capitalism, where there is no regulation of commerce by the government.

The act of wealth distribution (communal ownership), or taking from one and giving to another, is also part of the socialist theory, which is what I was referring to here. Originally Posted by nwarounder