Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who said they won't have medical bills? They surely will, but they won't be so crushing as they were before.
For instance, my health insurance this year fought me tooth and nail over my pre-existing condition. If they wouldn't have paid up then I would have been out an additional three grand. Because they finally paid their share I was only out a thousand or so. But I had to fight and argue with a hell of a lot of people for this to all work out.
Obamacare doesn't do a dam thing to cut the cost of care..
Regressive taxes put more of the burden on the poor than wealthy. Those who derive the majority of their income from dividends, interest and capital gains do not pay Payroll taxes.
Having said this, everyone needs to have some skin in the game, This includes the working poor and those with investment incomes greater than X.
The 400 largest tax returns all had taxable income that exceeded the FICA limit. The majority of their income may be from capital gains but that doesn't mean they don't pay payroll taxes.
Liberals want European-style social programs until they see the price tag. Their tax structure is far more regressive than ours.
No, it isn't. We need to protect the constitution. The "it sounds like a good idea, so who cares if the constitution allows it or not" attitude is endemic to liberals and it is dangerous.
We need to protect the Constitution...like we needed to protect it before it was amended to outlaw slavery?
For every person that dies specifically because of a waiting list in the UK or Canada, there's like 100 Americans that die because they can't afford healthcare. Wingnuts love to quote and exaggerate extremes, whereas people dying here because of a lack of payment is far more common than a few people dying on a waiting list.
Quoted, bolded, and colored for emphasis.
It's also neat how the free market dogmatists fail to point out that if the UK (or whatever other nation) spent over 17% of its GDP on health care then people would be able to receive their cancer treatments immediately in gold-plated operating rooms. They like to drop context and ignore that those nations are spending far, far less than we are.
Awesome post. If oblamer was actually trying to cut costs, which he's not. The clown is just shifting the cost to the taxpayer, us.
He's made his $$$ off the medical company lobbyists, no sense in denying that.
If you're not a taxpayer, drive on. If so, buckle up.
How do you recommend that Obama cut costs without doing what all of the other first world countries are doing? The ACA is not a revamping of our health care system nor does it even address the real problem with the health insurance costs (which is the entire quasi-free market foundation of our health care system)?
ObamaCare is designed to be so complicated, and so destructive that it will cause the current system to implode. When that happens, the libs will come to the rescue with another, equally destructive system of federally run, single payer health care. The private sector medical science advancements we have been enjoying this past century, will come to a screeching halt.
False.
Obamacare is NOT a health care system. It is merely a little band-aid on top of the current quasi-free market system which was failing long before the ACA was enacted. If Obamacare "fails" it will not be the little band-aid involving health insurance that fails, but rather the entire system of private hospitals and private health insurance companies.
For a feasible single payer system income taxes would not be raised, FICA taxes would. Instead of the low wage workers paying 7.45% in FICA, their taxes would be raised to ~17.3%. What they won't tell you is what the level of care would be. Medicaid is worse than being uninsured, but Medicare is better than being uninsured. Medicare is set to be depleted by 2026 though.
Can you point to some other first world nations that are spending anything close to 17% of their GDP on health care like the U.S. currently is? Heck, if we could just decrease the percentage of GDP we spend to 14% on health care while providing the 100% coverage (and zero medical bankruptcies) the other nation's provide for less than 14% it would be a huge windfall for us.
What about the constitution? Which clause allows the government to shut down private insurance companies?
Obviously, the Constitution would have to be amended to allow for real socialized medicine. That divine, infallible, holy document that once condoned slavery would have to be amended.
If any one of the 20-somethings who voted for Obama would be willing to volunteer for at least a month at a government medicaid facility, I can almost guarantee these same hoodwinked young people would be singing the praises of capitalism, pimples and all.
Samatha was a hardcore liberal but then she worked to see the realities of the government dependents.
Samantha said what really affected her was the cold reality that most of the Medicaid patients treated her like dirt. They showed no gratitude for the fact that Samantha's taxes were going to help them.
On top of their sense of entitlement, Samantha noticed many welfare mothers and fathers mistreated their children while the kids were the ones waiting to be seen!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
