Dear Leader has spoken, "Cut Household Spending to Afford Health Care Law" (economic, governor)

[Workin_Hard]

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

People's discretionary choices do not supersede the moral obligations of society. One of those obligations is health care. Your discretionary income takes a back seat to health care, whether you like it or not.

And what are these "moral obligations" of which you speak? Healthcare is a consumer product, no more, no less. I am not obligated to provide such product at my expense to anyone. You seem to want to make the discretionary income I've worked long and hard to obtain take a back seat to providing healthcare to others. Eff U! If you want others to have it, you are free to contrbute from your own pocket that they may. Stop being so free with the money I work hard for.

Here's a real-life scenario. Give me your take on it.

My wife and I have multiple grad degrees between us and are both employed as senior technical specialists in our respective fields. We have one child who attends a private school, takes private piano lessons, and is involved in a sports league. I drive a Benz.

One of our neighbors does not work regularly, has 10 children plus another on the way. The wife home schools the kids. They have an old 15-passenger van plus one other car. The kids are not well-provided for.

I am not Irish. I am not Catholic. I was not involved in the neighbor's decision to have a large family nor was I directly or indirectly involved in the conception process.

So you think under the guise of society's "moral obligation", my discretionary dollars should be diverted to providing for the healthcare needs of this herd? Do I have any right to send my daughter to private school at such expense while these other children do not get regular checkups? Should my daughter be having piano lessons while these children may go unvaccinated? Should she be funded for athletic events while the neighbor children are passing the flu around within their home? Should I be able to spend my earned income on a Benz while they have to struggle to pack their flock into a van for a trip to a clinic? Couldn't I just drive a Corolla instead as it will get me to work just as well? Do I really need that smartphone or top-tier FiOS in my home?

Maybe we have different ideas on where obligations lie? My neighbors are nice people, but it seems that we've made different choices in life. Do you seriously believe that I, or you, or society at large, should fund their choices or reduce in any way the consequences when theirs did not work out so well or were just poorly planned from the start?

[e30is]

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

You signed the contract with your employer did you not? Or were you coerced into doing so?

Nope, I'm actually arguing the contrary.

People's discretionary choices do not supersede the moral obligations of society. One of those obligations is health care. Your discretionary income takes a back seat to health care, whether you like it or not.

Get real.


Being healthy is important. One shouldn't be forced to buy a product that the government wants them to offer. I don't see the need for one unless I am in a major catastrophe, which is why I am only paying for a catastrophic plan.

[Opin_Yunated]

Summary of all the whining in this thread:

Originally Posted by xray731

OK - now you can say you've been scolded by a Democrat because all you say is BS. I live in a town that has closed all but 1 library 10 miles away. The transit authority has cancelled most of the routes in our area. It's not easy to move as houses aren't selling, even if I could get a job that could afford me to walk or use public transportation. Not that public transportation is cheap anymore. A taxi to work could total $20 a day at the very least - that's $100 a month. People can own a car and pay less even with gas and insurance costs.

But since you're so insistent - I hope that you feel the same way about those on welfare, medicaid and food stamps, that can use their food stamps for much more than the essentials like water - they can buy pop, prepared food, steaks ect... They use their Medicaid to drive up costs by going to the ER instead of going to a primary for preventative care. They call a taxi to go to the hospitals because they need a refill on medication. They have cable and internet - things you say are not essential to me but the Democrats feel it is essential for them. But for a working person who pays taxes - it is a discretionary item?

Before you sit here and preach to the working masses - preach to those you've bequeathed all these freebies too.

If these lower class people, didn't have integrity - they'd be better off going on the gov't dole - and we'd be paying more than just their medical bills.

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

Given the state of public education, I find private school tuition a necessary expense in our household. Right now that's to the tune of $25K a year. I'm not raising a WalMart clerk, which is about all the public schools can produce.

Then a man needs to be able to provide those things for himself and his family. I do not begrudge these things to anyone, however I am not willing to pay for others to have them and should not have to pay for coverage for anyone but my own family.

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

And what about those who are receiving the same or slightly less-better coverage for highe costs? My employer-provided healthcare coverage went up by 70% for a plan that covers less than I had last year. Our other option was my wife's employer, but they offered a salary-based plan where rates were progressive based upon how much you make. Earl in the mailroom would pay significantly less than Bob on Executive Row though each were receiving the same coverage. My wife is at a senior tech level so our costs would be significant. My employer was the better option cost-wise and more palatable in principle.

And not one penny of what could be our discretionary income should be subsidizing anyone else for their health coverage.

Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker

Those "choices" were made YEARS AGO before ObamaNoCare was enacted. The problem is that you are trying to change the pardigm unilaterally and the public cannot alter their way of life immediately. The house I bought, the cars I drive, and the discretionary spending plan that I have for my quality of life was created over the last 20 years. Now the governement has created an un-budgeted burden on me that wrecks that. I have insurance through my employer, but it is being dropped at the end May and replaced with who knows what. My lifestyle should not be altered due to people who choose not to insure themselves. Obama lied about the savings. If my insurance goes up more than $20/month, I directly blame him and his law.

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

And what are these "moral obligations" of which you speak? Healthcare is a consumer product, no more, no less. I am not obligated to provide such product at my expense to anyone. You seem to want to make the discretionary income I've worked long and hard to obtain take a back seat to providing healthcare to others. Eff U! If you want others to have it, you are free to contrbute from your own pocket that they may. Stop being so free with the money I work hard for.

Here's a real-life scenario. Give me your take on it.

My wife and I have multiple grad degrees between us and are both employed as senior technical specialists in our respective fields. We have one child who attends a private school, takes private piano lessons, and is involved in a sports league. I drive a Benz.

One of our neighbors does not work regularly, has 10 children plus another on the way. The wife home schools the kids. They have an old 15-passenger van plus one other car. The kids are not well-provided for.

I am not Irish. I am not Catholic. I was not involved in the neighbor's decision to have a large family nor was I directly or indirectly involved in the conception process.

So you think under the guise of society's "moral obligation", my discretionary dollars should be diverted to providing for the healthcare needs of this herd? Do I have any right to send my daughter to private school at such expense while these other children do not get regular checkups? Should my daughter be having piano lessons while these children may go unvaccinated? Should she be funded for athletic events while the neighbor children are passing the flu around within their home? Should I be able to spend my earned income on a Benz while they have to struggle to pack their flock into a van for a trip to a clinic? Couldn't I just drive a Corolla instead as it will get me to work just as well? Do I really need that smartphone or top-tier FiOS in my home?

Maybe we have different ideas on where obligations lie? My neighbors are nice people, but it seems that we've made different choices in life. Do you seriously believe that I, or you, or society at large, should fund their choices or reduce in any way the consequences when theirs did not work out so well or were just poorly planned from the start?

Originally Posted by e30is

Get real.
Being healthy is important. One shouldn't be forced to buy a product that the government wants them to offer. I don't see the need for one unless I am in a major catastrophe, which is why I am only paying for a catastrophic plan.

You are all free to address the questions I posed here at any time:

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

If your problem with the ACA is that it causes you to have less discretionary income (the case for pretty much everyone whining in this thread), just be honest about it.

"Fiscal conservatives," look yourself in the mirror and call yourself a hypocrite while you are at it too. The ACA is a conservative law.. because it is more fiscally conservative than our previous health care set-up. The United States by law has a moral obligation to provide catastrophic care to any citizens (and even non-citizens) in need. This moral obligation is not free, as nothing in the world is free. Health insurance is the product / service that provides a group pool payment to mitigate the inescapable risks in health care. However, Americans also value their freedom of choice. We run into two problems:

1) Should more prudent Americans pick up the tab for those who choose not to purchase health insurance?
2) How do we deal with people who flat out can't afford health care (was the case in the previous system)

The only possible solutions to minimize the cost to society as a whole are to:
1) Turn away people who haven't purchased health care (thus allowing poor and imprudent people to die)
2) Mandate all households to engage in the societal contract of funding their own health care, thus lowering the total burden on the rest of society (and the more prudent citizens).

This is explained in detail in the original plan authored by the Heritage Foundation. It is just amusing that so many people are ignorant and blindly believe slogans by their respective political party.

Stop complaining, stop being entitled, and answer the questions. If you can honestly feel no moral obligation as a society to allow everyone catastrophic care, just be honest and say imprudent and poor people should be left to die. Either way, it is more expensive to not mandate people to pay.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

I am speaking in general terms. Being a contractor is not a necessity.

Of course vehicles are necessary in certain professions. That wasn't my beef. The point I was making was vehicles are luxuries. They are not necessary. You chose your occupation. You chose where you live. Cars are not in the human handbook of essentials, sorry.

The taxpayer spent tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars saving the auto industry, now its a luxury..

[KUchief25]

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

And what are these "moral obligations" of which you speak? Healthcare is a consumer product, no more, no less. I am not obligated to provide such product at my expense to anyone. You seem to want to make the discretionary income I've worked long and hard to obtain take a back seat to providing healthcare to others. Eff U! If you want others to have it, you are free to contrbute from your own pocket that they may. Stop being so free with the money I work hard for.

Here's a real-life scenario. Give me your take on it.

My wife and I have multiple grad degrees between us and are both employed as senior technical specialists in our respective fields. We have one child who attends a private school, takes private piano lessons, and is involved in a sports league. I drive a Benz.

One of our neighbors does not work regularly, has 10 children plus another on the way. The wife home schools the kids. They have an old 15-passenger van plus one other car. The kids are not well-provided for.

I am not Irish. I am not Catholic. I was not involved in the neighbor's decision to have a large family nor was I directly or indirectly involved in the conception process.

So you think under the guise of society's "moral obligation", my discretionary dollars should be diverted to providing for the healthcare needs of this herd? Do I have any right to send my daughter to private school at such expense while these other children do not get regular checkups? Should my daughter be having piano lessons while these children may go unvaccinated? Should she be funded for athletic events while the neighbor children are passing the flu around within their home? Should I be able to spend my earned income on a Benz while they have to struggle to pack their flock into a van for a trip to a clinic? Couldn't I just drive a Corolla instead as it will get me to work just as well? Do I really need that smartphone or top-tier FiOS in my home?

Maybe we have different ideas on where obligations lie? My neighbors are nice people, but it seems that we've made different choices in life. Do you seriously believe that I, or you, or society at large, should fund their choices or reduce in any way the consequences when theirs did not work out so well or were just poorly planned from the start?

Your scenario is exactly what liberals want............YOU to pay for your neighbor. Well spelled out. It is sad when folks think they are "owed" money for doing nothing and they think the government is supposed to provide. Down the hill we go. IMO what you earn should be spent on YOUR family not others but nowdays that is being stolen. Denial of liberty I call it. Actually our kids will end up paying for it all which is even sadder.

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948

i love him dearly but he does not understand americans they want it first class and they want it all free, 60 years of good life indoctrination, both among the entitlement people and the rich daddy people its all the same
freebies freebies we want freebies. bek if its not free we have to go to work and that well is just not an acceptable option for 54% of the population. btw in china there is no such thing as work exempt.

Please tell me you are not advocating for the U.S. to be like China...

Originally Posted by rbohm

actually his ultimate plan is for everyone to be on the government dole or working for the government, because the government owns everything, and he is running the government.

LOL, maybe in your mind.

Originally Posted by rbohm

right, because public transportation goes everywhere everyone needs every time they need it, 24/7. and of course contractors dont need their trucks to haul their tools to and from the work site daily, they should be able to pick up their tool boxes and carry them around easily. or how about auto mechanics, they should be able to haul $100,000 worth of tools with them on the bus every where they go right? and of course that delivery person should be able to take a taxi every where they need to deliver their stuff. and of course real estate agents only need a bicycle built for how many to show houses? where you live a car might be a luxury, but in the real world, especially out west here, a car is more necessity than luxury

i will grant that a smart phone is a luxury, but it is affordable, and can be the only link to the outside world for many people as it does so much these days. as for going to the public library and using their internet connection, just what i want, to give government permission to read my emails, and track what i do on the net. yes lets all just do that so we can get rid of the NSA, and the fourth amemdment.

Originally Posted by JohnA151

you are WRONG no public transport of any type where i live (a mediam size town in texas) the library is other side of the city 3 miles away grocery store also 3 miles
no job so dont have internet at work
cant afford a taxi
need phone to seek employment
medical reasons for not using a cyle
you dont know what you are talking about

Where you live is your choice. You chose a car-dependent lifestyle. It is not my responsibility to subsidize your life style. Health care must be accessible to all citizens. They are going to get it through health insurance or the ER... would you like the cheaper option or the more expensive option?

[Jerseyt719]

Poor are covered under Medicaid. Imprudent? Sorry. Become prudent.

I still should not be paying more to get the same thing just to be able to cover others. I was doing that before the increase and now I'm being told to cover more people with my money and cut from my budget so others don't have to budget????

I thought this was America. The land of opportunity. Where you work hard to afford a good life. Not work hard and scrape and be told sorry, you work hard for the extras and now have to give them up because others are imprudent. Yeah, not your fault but you will pay for it anyway.

[Tassy001]

Originally Posted by chad3

Did you watch the video?
(You can't always believe the titles of Youtube videos.)

Obama did not say ""Cut Household Spending to Afford Health Care Law."

He basically said that people don't know how important health insurance is, and if someone in their family gets sick they will be very glad they have health insurance (because then they won't have to pay a $75,000 hospital bill.)

Did you watch the video?? Obviously not...

He said take a look at your budget. What are you paying for cable, telephone.....to prioritize your budget. So, yes - he did say cut household spending if needed to pay for healthcare.

[MissTerri]

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

Where you live is your choice. You chose a car-dependent lifestyle. It is not my responsibility to subsidize your life style. Health care must be accessible to all citizens. They are going to get it through health insurance or the ER... would you like the cheaper option or the more expensive option?

It's not my responsibility to subsidize strangers' health insurance costs.

The people who misuse the ER the most are people on Medicaid. Large numbers of uninsured people using the ER for routine care in is largely a myth. Report: Uninsured Emergency Room Use Greatly Exaggerated | Heartlander Magazine

A new report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the nation’s chief health statistics agency, suggests the longstanding perception uninsured patients are clogging the nation’s emergency rooms (ERs) is a myth. <snip> According to the report, released in May, nearly one-third (32 percent) of Medicaid enrollees used the ER at least once during a 12-month period in 2007. Individuals with private health coverage were only about half as likely (17 percent) to visit an ER, and a similar proportion—one in five—of individuals without health coverage did so.

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Apparently DNC Paid Troll
It is not the most affordable way, and you can't prove it.

The most affordable way requires the everyone paying.

Originally Posted by Mircea

That's amusing since you avoided my post which debunked your entire premise.

Yes, it can, but only when all Soviet-style Command Economic restrictions which artificially inflate prices are removed and replaced with Free Market principles.

Yes, you can.

You make a lot of baseless claims and declarations.

Originally Posted by Mircea

You're so ill-informed and uneducated that you don't even understand that Americans profited off of health insurance.

Yes, they did....Americans actually built wealth and made money off of health insurance, until this Soviet-style Command Economics law was passed....

"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."

Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information see the 1986 Internal Revenue Code.

Please elaborate in detail why you believe it is wrong for Americans to pay on an health insurance policy, and then leave up to $1 Million in cash to their named beneficiaries when they die.

Surely, someone of your special stature can explain why denying Wealth to Americans is beneficial, right?

Would you like wood to hang your strawman?

Originally Posted by Mircea

No, it doesn't, but thanks for alerting everyone on the internet you don't understand insurance.

Health insurance is different than conventional forms of insurance. As I reiterate, society has a moral obligation by U.S. law to provide health care to everyone. Health insurance can mitigate that cost, if we go that route. That's why socialized health care ends up being cheaper than private health care (in every other market the opposite is true).

Originally Posted by Mircea

No, it isn't.....and your constant refusal to prove it by making a line-by-line comparison only makes your position look weak.

So because you don't like my position, I have to do what you say? You aren't going to acknowledge my evidence either way.

Originally Posted by Mircea

No, there are Free Market solutions.

They haven't been offered, huh Republicans?

Originally Posted by Mircea

Then prove it.

Yes, because the US government and the American Medical Association artificially inflated the costs of both healthcare and health plan coverage through their Soviet-style policies.

Your argument was debunked, but thanks for letting us know how much you love Stalin...I'd bet you'd love to have his baby.

Arguments are stronger when the person stays on topic. What does Stalin have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by Mircea

Yes, they do.....and the Laws of Economics prove it.

You have already proven you don't know economics, nor have you addressed anything I posted.

Originally Posted by Mircea

That should be the policy for all hospitals that are owned in whole or in part by all levels of government.

For example, the VA will garnish your Social Security benefits to pay for services rendered.

Why States, universities -- run by the States -- counties and cities do not do the same, uh, well, that's just stupid.

Economically....

Mircea

Exactly. So let's recap:

Your complaint is the government interfering with health care, but now you advocate for the government garnishing wages to pay for health care? Make up your mind.

Thank you for making my points for me.

If everyone pays, everyone else pays less. Hence, the individual mandate.