RE: More Malarkey About Health Care

RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (Full Version)

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

Message

Elisabella -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/28/2010 3:19:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I think you need to review the law again. More specifically, the rates of pay, who pays, who is subsidized and at what level of proverty people have to start paying. I actually wrote about this in another thread - the conditions for 'poverty' status only make sense in a rural area where $15k per annum would be enough to live on. In cities, the fact that anyone who makes minimum wage (approximately 15k a year) is likely working two jobs in order to pay the rent means that their income, despite the circumstances in which they earn it, will likely disqualify them from free (or, more likely, cheaper) healthcare.

Fellow -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/28/2010 3:41:38 PM)
Adding to my previous post: quote: I do not see where the confusion is? Half of the population has income less than a median and half of the population has more meaning about half of the population will be subsidized to a variable extent. My guess was that operating a subsidy department will cost much more than the projected budget. I do not have time to do correct statistics. I know the distribution of income/subsidies should be considered. My guess was just a rough estimate considering US spends about $4200 per person and half of the population is about 150 million. If we take 50% subsidy (it is certainly more) we still will get much higher numbers. For the record: I do not oppose the law (financially stupid way to do it, of course) as the public health is one of the most important things to care for. In addition, the cost should be honestly considered. It would have certainly resulted in a better law if there was an honest approach.

Sanity -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/28/2010 4:27:23 PM)
Don't misunderstand, I am only lampooning the way the race card is so indiscriminately tossed out there of late as a means of trying to win each and every political disagreement that arises. quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Wow. All we need now is a contemptuous follow up by cuckyman and we'll be set! [8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/28/2010 4:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow I do not see where the confusion is? Half of the population has income less than a median and half of the population has more meaning about half of the population will be subsidized to a variable extent. My guess was that operating a subsidy department will cost much more than the projected budget. Are you saying that the average American makes $44,000 per year? Are you saying that half of all Americans make more than $44,000 per year? Or Are you saying that five percent of the people have ninety five percent of the money and ninety five percent of the people have five percent of the money and half way between the mass of the five percent and the mass that the ninety five percent have is $44,000? Just for the record my money is on door number three[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/28/2010 4:39:28 PM)
quote: I actually wrote about this in another thread - the conditions for 'poverty' status only make sense in a rural area where $15k per annum would be enough to live on. If you live in a rural area you have farther to drive for any goods or services. If you live in a rural area you pay more for goods and services because rural areas lack economy of scale. Rent in a rural area is not necessarily cheaper than town because of the lack of housing inventory in rural areas. I believe your $15k per year figgure is wrong for the above reasons. Please do not use me as a model for the costs of rural living...I am a tree hugger that throws nothing away has a 10,000 sq.ft. garden,livestock and makes his own fuel and electricity. That is a little abnormal in our society.

Arpig -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/28/2010 8:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity People generally indicate they're using the fast reply feature in such posts, arpig, specifically to minimize confusion. Hadn't you noticed that before? I do, and many others do, but many of the newer folks don't...besides it was friggin obvious...even to my addled socialist brain.

Musicmystery -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/29/2010 4:37:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella I actually wrote about this in another thread - the conditions for 'poverty' status only make sense in a rural area where $15k per annum would be enough to live on. I live in a rural area. $15,000/year is absolutely not enough to live on. Simple math about the necessities and what they cost will disavow you of this notion. That's not even counting high transportation costs or the costs of dealing with Mother Nature. Your point that cities are more expensive (I've lived in Boston and Massachusetts) is sometimes true. Smaller cities, if someone works and plays inside the city, can be quite cost effective with low transportation costs and even utility costs. In today's world, twice that would be a reasonable living--for a single person, and only if that person had a job. Savings would be low, retirement a fantasy.

tazzygirl -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/29/2010 5:08:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I think you need to review the law again. More specifically, the rates of pay, who pays, who is subsidized and at what level of proverty people have to start paying. I actually wrote about this in another thread - the conditions for 'poverty' status only make sense in a rural area where $15k per annum would be enough to live on. In cities, the fact that anyone who makes minimum wage (approximately 15k a year) is likely working two jobs in order to pay the rent means that their income, despite the circumstances in which they earn it, will likely disqualify them from free (or, more likely, cheaper) healthcare. A nice little tool to clear up the misconceptions about the cost. My cost, at 15000 a year income, no employer coverage, age 45... 499 a year. http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

tazzygirl -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/29/2010 5:18:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk 40 million Americans use food stamps. What use they have of the knowledge that if they had enough money their health insurance buying application can not be denied? Stoned when you wrote this? I wrote it. What is specifically wrong? quote: tazzygirl: I think you need to review the law again. More specifically, the rates of pay, who pays, who is subsidized and at what level of proverty people have to start paying. Yes, the subsidies. What I learned about the subsidies is that the the Budget Office numbers do not add up. Starting 44,000 (about US median income for a single) and under means that about half of the population will get subsidies. How will 100 B a year do it? Max 7% expense on 14,000 perhaps can be absorbed but it puts extra financial pressure on working poor. In addition, a lot of bureaucracy needs to be created to fight fraud. Actually, those who qualify have to sign up for Medicaid/Medicare. The income guidelines are as follows for NY. Each state has their own. http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/#income If employers do payroll deduction, then its pre-tax dollars. The bite isnt as deep. No one said this would be easy... but damn if it isnt needed. I really dont need to explain how treating someone for high blood pressure with medication and nutrition is way cheaper than treating the stroke that will come if that person doesnt have access to medical care, do i?

Sanity -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/29/2010 7:59:48 AM)
I seriously doubt that your addled socialist brain has become this angry and upset because I sought to clarify a quote which was misattributed to me. Whats really bothering you? quote: ORIGINAL: ArpigI do, and many others do, but many of the newer folks don't...besides it was friggin obvious...even to my addled socialist brain.

Dubbelganger -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/29/2010 11:43:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl A nice little tool to clear up the misconceptions about the cost. My cost, at 15000 a year income, no employer coverage, age 45... 499 a year. http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx Well, the problem with that calculator is that it doesn't specify whether one's income is gross, or adjusted gross, or taxable income. My taxable income is zero, or close to it. Nevertheless, I'll be saving several hundred a month.

tazzygirl -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/29/2010 9:35:18 PM)
Its based on gross income.

Arpig -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/30/2010 6:34:07 AM)
quote: I seriously doubt that your addled socialist brain has become this angry and upset because I sought to clarify a quote which was misattributed to me. Whats really bothering you? I'm not actually angry or upset, guess i just found your replies to it bitchy..and was feeling bitchy myself...no harm no foul.

thompsonx -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/30/2010 3:47:18 PM)
quote: and was feeling bitchy myself... You...bitchy???? How does that work...you are Canadian. I have been to Canada...that word is not even in the Canadian dictionary[8\|]

thornhappy -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/30/2010 6:13:12 PM)
Just today they were roasting Dems & Republicans for misleading/misrepresentitive tweets. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Factcheck's own site reveals its ability to be bipartisan in its criticisms, rule. A few wont go look. I simply ignore them. Jim is definitely worth a selective ignore. [:D]

Arpig -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/30/2010 6:17:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: and was feeling bitchy myself... You...bitchy???? How does that work...you are Canadian. I have been to Canada...that word is not even in the Canadian dictionary[8\|] Sure it is...we just spell it with an extra "U"[:D]

thompsonx -> RE: More Malarkey About Health Care (4/30/2010 6:23:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: and was feeling bitchy myself... You...bitchy???? How does that work...you are Canadian. I have been to Canada...that word is not even in the Canadian dictionary[8\|] Sure it is...we just spell it with an extra "U"[:D] If you say so but I have been thrown out of a lot of places in my life and I am here to tell you being thrown out of Canada was not among the worst experieces of my life.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02