DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Does no one see a man trying to make a point? That he'd rather fight for what he believes is right rather than take the easy way out and purchase insurance he's being coerced into buying (under threat of fines)? Doesn't anyone else see that?
First off, he's not right. His party didn't win the election, nor successful remove the Affordable Care Act from the budget battle just a week ago. The US Supreme Court made its ruling with the ACA and nothing within is unconstitutional. In fact, he's not right in the head. Most people will have bills of $130-400/month, and he's bitching about $18/month? Does that sound like someone that is right in the head? Or in serious need of a mental health specialists that is paid with the ACA plan?
Bullshit. The Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate is not Constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause, but was so as a tax. It also ruled that the removal of all Medicaid funding if a State didn't expand Medicaid was not Constitutional. The Constitutionality question is not likely over, either.
That's a technicality and you know it. 'Brown Verse Board of Education' is what a decision looks like in the US Supreme Court. When the decision...REALLY...changes the framework of the United States and its people. Your point here, is pointing out a minor technicality on how language is used to identify an action in legal terms.
What's a technicality? The individual mandate was ruled as Constitutional under the taxing authority, but not Constitutionally sound under the InterState Commerce Clause. The removal of all Medicaid funding if a State did not expand Medicaid was ruled un-Constitutional. The two aspects of Obamacare were brought to the SCOTUS. One was declared unConstitutional. One was not. Your claim that "nothing within [the ACA] is unconstitutional" was incorrect.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The guy, obviously, isn't bitching because the cost is low. He's bitching because he feels it's not within the authority of the Federal Government to force him to spend it.
You don't go to a court house, spend several hundred dollars on fees, taking time out of your day job, hiring a lawyer.....because.....your not bitching at something within a law? *LAUGH* Yeah...BULLSHIT! Is he a US Citizen? Yes. Is He within the United States Borders? Yes. Is he over the age of 26? Yes. Is he currently employed to an employer giving him health care coverage? No. Is he currently not in prison or other such location which would prohibit him from obtaining a health care plan should he wish it? No. Does he pay income taxes for his job? As of 2014's Income Tax form for events in 2013, if he does not show proof of a health care plan, he *WILL* be penalized. That is the law of the land right now, DS. No BS'ing around it!
If he was bitching about the cost being so low...WHY...does he have to pay it? Begs the question then, why hasn't he sued the government over the federal gas tax attached to all petroleum products for automobiles? The current Federal tax on one gallon of gas is $0.184 (that's 18.4 cents). Now, which is LOWER DS? $18 or $0.184?
Does he have a history of suing the federal government over the federal gas tax which has been in place...FAR LONGER...than the Affordable Care Act? NO! So its fair to say that this is all to due with a politics and his bitching. The only way you can further argue this is with a complete fantasy.
Wow. Talk about flights of fantasy. I'm not even sure wtf you're arguing against here.
Obviously, the guy isn't complaining that the cost is too high, right? So, what's his beef? Perhaps he, like many others, doesn't think the Federal Government has the right to force (or compel) Citizens into buying a product? Nah, that can't be it. He's probably just a racist. 
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It's not always going to be about the cost. The cost being so low for this guy should make one realize how much this guy doesn't want the Federal Government to be making the decisions about his health care. It's one thing when the costs are higher than what you've been paying to oppose it. But, with the costs being so low, it's a matter of principle.
This is not principle, its being petty and classless; you know, typical 'Tea Party' attitude. This guy holds a day job. If he cant pay $18/month for health coverage, I have to seriously wonder how his personal business operates. Maybe we should call the IRS to do an actual audit of his books. Hell, how much money did he spend to push this through the courts, DS? That's several months if not a year or two right there (assuming $18/month). You want to argue that this dingle-berry is sensible with money management skills? Quite a large amount of his money just got blown after the judge ruled against him. This is not principle, DS, this is total stupidity on display.
Bullshit. He isn't taking the easy or cheap way out, obviously. He's willing to stand up for what he thinks is right. I'd much rather stand with those people than with those who simply go along with things because it's not really a high cost.
As I've shown above, he *IS* trying to take the easy and cheap way out, and it....FAILED! Ended up costing him much more. You would rather stand up with people that are cheap, dishonest, and stupid? That's what this guy is unfortunately. Now if he found all the Bronze plans in his area would cost him $800/month for just himself. THAT, would be a principled argument that I could support. Since none of the bronze plans in his area come close to that dollar cost right now. I pay more for a full rack of BBQ ribs from a decent restaurant in Boston each month than he pays on his health care costs. This guy had no argument and the judge was correct in throwing it out. He wasted the court's time and resources pushing his political agenda. But since he's conservative, and your a conservative, you see that as not wasting taxpayer money, right?
If the cost of the plan was $800, then you might support his argument?!? WTF?!? He isn't arguing that it costs too much. The principled stand is one where not standing is cheaper, and/or easier. If it's more expensive to stand go with the flow than it is to stand in opposition, how principled is that?!?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Does no one stand up for principles anymore?
You want to see an example of principle as it relates to the issue, DS:
I feel health care is neither a right nor a privilege. Its a needed concept in my nation! A needed concept that supersedes the right and the privileged.
And, you are changing the equation with your statement. Health care isn't only for the privileged It's available for everyone. Obamacare isn't really about health care anyway. It's about insurance. The only way "health care" is made "more affordable" is by subsidizing the cost of insurance. That's not actually making health care more affordable at all. That just shifts the cost of care onto "the rich."
No I am not. You need an example of the difference between 'principle argument' and 'political bullshit masquerading as a principle argument'.
You've given plenty. I didn't need another.
[qutoe]Second, there is no 'Obamacare' on the legal books. There is the Affordable Care Act. If your going to argue and be taken seriously, its the Affordable Care Act. Do you write essays with '3li73 5p3ak' (elite speak) or 'txt spk' (texting)? No, of course not, that's bad form on a publishable document. You write out every work. Its understood if your going to abbreviate a word that is generally accepted as abbreviate-able. But why call it 'Obamacare' if its actually called the Affordable Care Act?
Interesting. Even Obama said he didn't mind it being called Obamacare. When someone refers to Obamacare, you obviously understand it to be the ACA (or should you be calling it the PPACA?), so communication is happening just fine.
quote:
Or is it: "I'd much rather stand with those people than with those who simply go along with things because it's not really a high cost"? Your words just made you look like a fool. You have problems typing out two spaces and eight additional letters, DS? Your Bullshitting as much as this guy is!
I look like a fool for being willing to stand with people of principle? If that's the definition, then I fit it. Sorry you'd rather not stand with principled people.
quote:
Third, 'Health Care' and 'Health Insurance' by legal terms is the same thing. Go ahead an argue the difference if that will make you happy. But in the end, they are both about the same thing: protecting you from bad stuff that could happen to your body.[/.quote]
Wrong. Go to the Hospital and see how much health insurance you can get from them.
Health insurance is a way to pay for health care. Obamacare does not provide one ounce of care. Not. A. Single. Ounce. It's all about health insurance.
quote:
Fourth, this country subsidies middle class welfare already. Funny how not one conservative ever bitches about it? Its called 'Government Contracts to the Private Sector'. Like defense, medical, education, construction, law enforcement, etc. So the government subsides the healthcare plans for bronze and silver plans? They don't do that for gold or platinum plans. Now why do you think that is, DS?
Wait. The Government hires private contractors to do their work, and I'm supposed to complain that they are paying their bills?!? And, paying someone for services provided or work done isn't welfare, either. Nice try, though.
quote:
Fifth, the money being subsidize is NOT coming from "the rich" as you put it. Its coming directly from the US Government! When you pay taxes, that money is GONE to the US Government. You no longer have any say over that money directly. Indirectly you can write your representative and/or senators to make use of that money as you wish. They are under no obligation to obey it. If you are having problems understand this, lets use a private sector situation rather than a public. You go to a gas station, you fill up your tank full. How much of the money that you give to the company is your to dictate how its used? Not a penny! The money being used in the subsidies comes from the government. The rich, like everyone else pay taxes as taxes are owed under the current laws of the land.
Interesting. Tax Law Changes in 2013 from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) That Affect Higher Income Earnersquote:
Following are three key changes you should know about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as it relates to your individual income tax return. There will be additional changes going forward, so specifically, we are looking at tax year 2013.
...
The other two changes for 2013 that come from the Affordable Care Act affect "high income" taxpayers. The new tax rules required an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax be paid when there is an earned income greater than $200,000 for Single, Head of Household or Qualifying Widow taxpayers; $250,000 for Married Filing Jointly taxpayers, and $125,000 for Married Filing Separately taxpayers. This includes wages and self-employment income. The additional taxes will be withheld from your pay if your wages are $200,000 or greater regardless of your filing status. Taxpayers affected by this change may need to adjust their withholding or make estimated tax payments to ensure the additional taxes from this change doesn't trigger a balance due when filing taxes next year. Income tax withholdings can be increased by submitting an updated Form W-4 to the employer.
...
The next change, and perhaps one of the most confusing one for high income taxpayers, is the new 3.8 percent Medicare surtax on Net Investment income. Taxpayers with an income of greater than $250,000 if Married Filing Jointly, $200,000 if Head of Household, Single or a Qualifying Widow and $125,000 if Married Filing Separately will owe the new tax on Net Investment Income (NII). NII includes investment income such as interest, dividends, capital gains, passive income, and rental or royalty income. The tax is assessed on the smaller of the total NII or excess income greater than the income thresholds. Sound confusing? It is. Here's an example.
Nope. No new taxes on "the rich" in there at all. Nope. None at all. Lemme guess, though. Those new taxes are for Homeland Security, right?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
In your opinion, why do the costs for procedures in the US cost so much more than anywhere else?
Profit. That is the simplest answer to be given. Conservatives hate the idea of a socialistic society, so we live in a capitalist. The actual answer to your question is the stuff big, fat books are written about in-depth and at length. Go to your local book store. Ask for books on the subject. Read them all. Then form a real opinion on what you read.
How much profit is there in insurance and in the provision of medical care? Is the profit margin 100% or more? If not, then that's not what makes the cost of procedures and services 2-3x the cost in other industrialized countries.
Who is allowed to profit, in your opinion (this isn't limited to health care or health insurance)? How much is an acceptable profit margin?
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Suing over not wanting to pay $18/month for health ... - 
Profile
at you and modern liberalism. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread