RE: Name your penalty!

RE: Name your penalty! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Elisabella -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 5:48:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval I have errands to run so cannot address all of your post now. But I can say that $560 divided over 12 months would be much less, about $46 per month, than the cost of private insurance now. Is this a perfect solution? No. But it at least gives someone at this level of income a chance for coverage. It doesn't give them a "chance" for coverage - it gives them a "requirement" for coverage which is my ONLY problem with this. If everything was the same, except for the mandatory purchase, I'd still think the subsidies were low but I'd say whatever, life's not perfect, but this...requiring someone to spend between 3-10% of their income, requiring them to give it to a private company, whether or not they want to, whether or not they're able to, that to me is just wrong. If the government wants everyone to have healthcare they should make a public option. The increase in taxes will be offset by increase in minimum wage ($14 in AU compared to $7 in US) and it will guarantee that people have healthcare, as opposed to this option, that will take money away from people who can't afford healthcare yet give them nothing in return.

tazzygirl -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 5:50:02 PM)
They tried to offer a public option. you saw what happened. the option will come.. in time.

Elisabella -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 5:50:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl They tried to offer a public option. you saw what happened. the option will come.. in time. I hope it does but not having another option doesn't mean I should have to defend this flawed one.

subtee -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 5:54:29 PM)
It seems to me, the dealio is that we have all of these Boomers getting old and decrepit and falling down with alzheimers and teeth falling out and organs failing... So we have to fix that. Medical expenses preclude foregoing insurance. Insurance is about the big, big profits. There's no reconciliation here without doing some Denzel-take-some-action, get things better.

Thadius -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 5:55:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The problem isnt just their office. Hospitals must also be paid. How many of them are willing to stop accepting insurance? Trust me, im not happy with this bill either, but i do view it as a beginning. Im all reality, the point of this thread was to make people actually think about the alternatives. The alternative to taxing would be denial of care... something no one here even wanted to discuss. Facts are simple. This is pointing out how many are working, full time, below the poverty level. Its pointing out the humanity in all of us. No one, besides me, even suggested denial of care. Im surprised no one has taken into consideration the fines and taxes against employers and insurance companies.. not that there will be alot. As I pointed out in another post, there are probably a bunch that will be lining up to stop taking at least the 2 bigger ones Medicare and Medicaid. The Mayo in Arizona has announced it will not longer accept them. What that leaves us with is why are these hospitals and pharmacies dropping these patients? Mostly because of the cost of the red tape and the mandated payouts. So we are going to have to do something to make those patients desirable again. See the circle that we get into? Also there are no price controls in place to stop insurance companies from charging what they need to cover the increased risk that they will be assuming because of there no longer being caps on coverage and no longer being able to turn away those with pre-existing conditions. Around and around we go making it more and more expensive for everybody. Oops went off on a tangent there....

tazzygirl -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 5:57:03 PM)
Again, i restate, i am not happy with this one either. But it has to begin somewhere. 10% is 7% pretax. 15000 x 7% = 1050 1050 / 50 (giving that some people do not have vacation time paid for) = 21 dollars a week. I have paid up to 50 a week for insurance that covered only sick medical, slight vision, and an ok dental plan. so what costs 21 dollars a week? cable? internet? eating out one dinner a week? buying lunch while at work? many ways to work out that number, no?

tazzygirl -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:00:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The problem isnt just their office. Hospitals must also be paid. How many of them are willing to stop accepting insurance? Trust me, im not happy with this bill either, but i do view it as a beginning. Im all reality, the point of this thread was to make people actually think about the alternatives. The alternative to taxing would be denial of care... something no one here even wanted to discuss. Facts are simple. This is pointing out how many are working, full time, below the poverty level. Its pointing out the humanity in all of us. No one, besides me, even suggested denial of care. Im surprised no one has taken into consideration the fines and taxes against employers and insurance companies.. not that there will be alot. As I pointed out in another post, there are probably a bunch that will be lining up to stop taking at least the 2 bigger ones Medicare and Medicaid. The Mayo in Arizona has announced it will not longer accept them. What that leaves us with is why are these hospitals and pharmacies dropping these patients? Mostly because of the cost of the red tape and the mandated payouts. So we are going to have to do something to make those patients desirable again. See the circle that we get into? Also there are no price controls in place to stop insurance companies from charging what they need to cover the increased risk that they will be assuming because of there no longer being caps on coverage and no longer being able to turn away those with pre-existing conditions. Around and around we go making it more and more expensive for everybody. Oops went off on a tangent there.... Would you consider me crazy if i told you i expect that circle? Am i the only one seeing this as a way to force insurance companies to learn to compete competitively or pack up their insurance forms and go home, allowing Uncle Sam to step in and take over?

Elisabella -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:01:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Again, i restate, i am not happy with this one either. But it has to begin somewhere. 10% is 7% pretax. 15000 x 7% = 1050 1050 / 50 (giving that some people do not have vacation time paid for) = 21 dollars a week. I have paid up to 50 a week for insurance that covered only sick medical, slight vision, and an ok dental plan. so what costs 21 dollars a week? cable? internet? eating out one dinner a week? buying lunch while at work? many ways to work out that number, no? I highly doubt someone making 15k a year is going to take 2 weeks vacation. Someone in that income bracket will likely only pay 4% of their income...around $46 per month or ~$11 a week. Though I think for someone making THAT little money it would be less about "not going out to dinner" and more about "replacing peanut butter with ramen noodles." Regardless, it's their money to do what they want with. If it's government mandated just make it a part of taxes and have the government give the tax money to the insurers, a lot more honest that way than mandating that someone buy something from a private company out of pocket.

pahunkboy -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:01:28 PM)
people losing houses- left and right.... cos they cant afford a roof over their head. So sick the IRS on them- to buy health ins. AIG- . criminalize the poor stiff who only brings in 10k a year.

tazzygirl -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:02:30 PM)
pahunk... its not 10 thousand. research your figures.

tazzygirl -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:04:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella I highly doubt someone making 15k a year is going to take 2 weeks vacation. Someone in that income bracket will likely only pay 4% of their income...around $46 per month or ~$11 a week. Though I think for someone making THAT little money it would be less about "not going out to dinner" and more about "replacing peanut butter with ramen noodles." Regardless, it's their money to do what they want with. If it's government mandated just make it a part of taxes and have the government give the tax money to the insurers, a lot more honest that way than mandating that someone buy something from a private company out of pocket. Makes you wonder why they didnt. I think i offered up that answer.

Silence8 -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:05:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The problem isnt just their office. Hospitals must also be paid. How many of them are willing to stop accepting insurance? Trust me, im not happy with this bill either, but i do view it as a beginning. Im all reality, the point of this thread was to make people actually think about the alternatives. The alternative to taxing would be denial of care... something no one here even wanted to discuss. Facts are simple. This is pointing out how many are working, full time, below the poverty level. Its pointing out the humanity in all of us. No one, besides me, even suggested denial of care. Im surprised no one has taken into consideration the fines and taxes against employers and insurance companies.. not that there will be alot. There's nothing 'human' about this bill, first of all, unless you think of a 'corporation' as being 'corporate', hence, somehow of the body. Penalizing people for not buying insurance is simply ethically wrong, seeing that -- maybe there's something I'm missing, but -- not only would these individuals not have coverage, they also would have to pay for WHAT AMOUNTS TO NOTHING. Paying for nothing -- AGAIN, if you consider the Financial Crisis as the first big nothing... So, yeah, denial of care is still the state of things for millions of Americans. Also: 1) Facts aren't simple. 2) This isn't a beginning of ANYTHING. I guess I'm not in the mood for sugarcoating.

Elisabella -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:06:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Makes you wonder why they didnt. I think i offered up that answer. Because this way they can present it as "Everyone will be able to get healthcare" rather than "Everyone will be forced to buy healthcare" which would have been a LOT more obvious if it was a tax raise issue.

slvemike4u -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:07:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Silence8 quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Seems while I was away Ven adressed Elisabella's post( in better and more comprehensive fasion then I would be capable of doing) so before I go back to packing allow me to say ...Thanks Merc, and I hope it goes without saying the hopes for the weekend is reciprocal [:)]. PA the folks you descired are either a) off the grid and therefor have no need to fear this legislation and b) no one on 10k a year is paying Federal,State or local tax.....period. I think your 'b' is incorrect. Well seeing as I obviously beleive my "b"to be correct(or else I wouldn't have written it)it would seem you would need to show me my error.Care to do that?

tazzygirl -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:08:12 PM)
Nor are you in the mood to read the bill. Lots of power in being informed. Its hard to debate something that not everyone has read.

Silence8 -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:09:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The problem isnt just their office. Hospitals must also be paid. How many of them are willing to stop accepting insurance? Trust me, im not happy with this bill either, but i do view it as a beginning. Im all reality, the point of this thread was to make people actually think about the alternatives. The alternative to taxing would be denial of care... something no one here even wanted to discuss. Facts are simple. This is pointing out how many are working, full time, below the poverty level. Its pointing out the humanity in all of us. No one, besides me, even suggested denial of care. Im surprised no one has taken into consideration the fines and taxes against employers and insurance companies.. not that there will be alot. As I pointed out in another post, there are probably a bunch that will be lining up to stop taking at least the 2 bigger ones Medicare and Medicaid. The Mayo in Arizona has announced it will not longer accept them. What that leaves us with is why are these hospitals and pharmacies dropping these patients? Mostly because of the cost of the red tape and the mandated payouts. So we are going to have to do something to make those patients desirable again. See the circle that we get into? Also there are no price controls in place to stop insurance companies from charging what they need to cover the increased risk that they will be assuming because of there no longer being caps on coverage and no longer being able to turn away those with pre-existing conditions. Around and around we go making it more and more expensive for everybody. Oops went off on a tangent there.... Would you consider me crazy if i told you i expect that circle? Am i the only one seeing this as a way to force insurance companies to learn to compete competitively or pack up their insurance forms and go home, allowing Uncle Sam to step in and take over? That's not at all what's happening. The insurance companies practically WROTE this bill; that's common knowledge.

tazzygirl -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Makes you wonder why they didnt. I think i offered up that answer. Because this way they can present it as "Everyone will be able to get healthcare" rather than "Everyone will be forced to buy healthcare" which would have been a LOT more obvious if it was a tax raise issue. That is certainly one way to look at it. Another take, which is mine, is that assessing a payroll tax ensures the insurance companies that we are complying, and gives them an automatic withdrawal of income. As much as Obama and the rest wanted public option, why would they offer this boon to the insurance companies?

TreasureKY -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:12:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Nor are you in the mood to read the bill. Lots of power in being informed. Its hard to debate something that not everyone has read. lol... Yeah, but Tazzy... that would require wading through pages and pages of "bullshit" (to use Silence's own word) that he can't understand and he wouldn't have time left to look at his picture books. [;)]

tazzygirl -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:13:15 PM)
quote: That's not at all what's happening. The insurance companies practically WROTE this bill; that's common knowledge. Hmmm... Insurance companies spent billions fighting something they wrote... nope.. not seeing it.

Silence8 -> RE: Name your penalty! (3/26/2010 6:15:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Nor are you in the mood to read the bill. Lots of power in being informed. Its hard to debate something that not everyone has read. Bull fucking shit. I've been following this BS since the beginning. I've read a host of articles from a number of sources. I'm a student. I read books ALL FUCKING DAY, for my livelihood. My neck hurts, and I need to get more exercise. So I'd read your fucking bill -- that is, if I didn't have PRIVATE INSURANCE.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875