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.
Wow, only 30 million americans will be paying more than they are now.. Thats all..
Insuring 30-40 million is like the size and expense of the Canadian health care system, it will not be cheap, it will not be free, and it will incur more fraud, waste and abuse, not less.
Where do people think the money for a Canadian sized health care system will come from? Oh yeah, 0bama promised to pay for it thru savings on badly spent money.
We are all going to have our taxes raised to pay for this 0bamaCare, even if we choose a private plan, we and our employers will be paying taxes to support 0bamaCare.
So where is the incentive to pay for 0bamaCare, thru forced taxation, and pay for our private health care insurance too? Where is the incentive for business to pay for 0bamaCare and a private health plan for their employees?
Tell me why we have to pass legislation to enforce existing laws? Pelosi stated she was going to pay for reform by cutting out all the fraud. Fraud is illegal.
Apparently people need to be fired, jailed or impeached for allowing $500 billion, or maybe trillions in fraud by now,to go unchallenged. Why hasn't the democratic congress performed proper oversight to stop this fraud and waste?
Not just people who "don't want insurance" it would be a tax even on people who had insurance, but the their insurance did not meet some arbitrarily defined requirements set by the federal government.
If I were to purchase health insurance that met all my needs and only cost me $100 a month, I would be taxed with a fine because my private health insurance did not meet government mandates. The same would be true if I purchased a premium health insurance, and the government thought it was too nice because it was the Cadillac of health insurance plans, they will punish me then too.
If 0bamaCare passes, all health insurance will be exactly like the 0bamaCare insurance, and the government will punish those who stray from those government mandates.
Why on earth do you think that? Just give a link.
"arbitrarily defined requirements" - not hardly arbitrary.
"Essential Benefits Package” Requirements for “Qualified Health Benefit Plans.” Cost‐sharing underthe essential benefits package would be designed so that the plan covers approximately 70 percent ofthe full value of benefits in the essential benefits package; “Qualified Health Benefit Plans” could cover ahigher percentage.
The essential benefits package would be required to cover the following items andservices:
• hospitalization;
• outpatient hospital and clinic services, including emergency department services;
• services of physicians and other health professionals;
• services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician or health professional inappropriate settings;
• prescription drugs;
• rehabilitative and “habilitative” services (i.e., services to maintain the physical, intellectual,emotional, and social functioning of developmentally delayed individuals);
• mental health and substance use disorder servicescertain preventive services (with no cost‐sharing permitted) and vaccines;
• maternity care;
• well‐baby, well‐childcare, oral health, vision, hearing services, equipment, and supplies for those under age 21
Schieffer: … no tax of any kind on Americans. Can you still make that promise to people today?
Obama: I can still keep that promise because, as I've said, about two-thirds of what we've proposed would be from money that's already in the health care system but just being spent badly. And as I said before, this is not me making wild assertions. [Mod edited for copyright]
ONLY if you make under 250,000 per year, he never said no taxes for anyone.
Casper
The Rs, frantic to get back into power in 2010, would have you believe this beneficial thing, in which you would not pay any more than you pay now unless you're totally uninsured, is or includes a universal and burdensome tax.
Does anyone see the irony in the claim that medicare, government insurance, wastes billions, so we're going to use those wasted billions to fund government insurance? He would gain some credibility if he would go ahead and cut the billioins of wasted dollars (without cutting services as he claims) and demonstrate that to the people. Then he would only need to figure out how to pay for the other third or whatever it is that's left.
The Rs, frantic to get back into power in 2010, would have you believe this beneficial thing, in which you would not pay any more than you pay now unless you're totally uninsured, is or includes a universal and burdensome tax.
So basically you're believing everything obama is telling you - even though there is a plethora of articles, opinions, statistics that are contrary to his rhetoric?
You take him at blind faith and yet there are so many examples of government-run entities that have never delivered on the promises.
Can anyone name me just ONE government-run program that cost less than they said it would cost?
Can anyone name me just ONE government-run program that has resulted in actual cost savings they expected?
Can anyone name me just ONE government-run program that has not run into massive red ink?
If you can't do that, why would you believe what he is saying now?
Never fear, saganista is here, to try to explain that there is a difference between a tax, and a fee, and to pretend that if you dont pay your "fees", you wont go to jail. As if the difference matters to those of us who have to pay it.
When the question is over whether a contemplated payment is a tax or not, then the definition of what is and is not considered to be a tax becomes pertinent. Perhaps not to right-wingers though, so mnay of whom believe -- like Humpty-Dumpty -- that when they use a word, it means just what they want it to mean...neither more nor less. This is another example of the childishness that permeates so much of what is proposed as "right-wing thinking".
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Hows the health care benefits for your government job sag? I bet you dont think we taxpayers pay that either...
As you should know but probably don't, the health insurance available to members of Congress and other civilian federal employees actually differs very little from packages tpyically available through larger entities in the private sector. Rates, deductibles, and co-pays have all been going up for everybody, and lower income workers have a hard time affording the costs. The singular advantage that government workers do have is that they are not stuck with the tiny range of options that a private employer's HR department might come up with. The federal system features an exchange-like setup in which many different providers offer many different plans. Thus the customer can search through this insurance bazaar, looking for that one particular plan that best fits his or her needs and income level. And if conditions should change, it is an easy thing to switch to a new and more suitable plan the following year. If you would like to have this same advantage when shopping for your own insurance, be sure to write your Congressperson and urge him or her to support health care reform now.
Of course taxpayers pay the roughy 70% share of insurance costs that the goverment picks up. Just as I and other people who purchase Microsoft products or fly on Southwest Airlines pay the roughly 70% of insurance costs that those pick up. You again don't seem to understand very much about how a society and an economy work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
p.s. you might want to call your buddy Obama and tell him, because he just called rate increases from the insurance companies "a tax" in the video above.
LOL. I guess you didn't realize that he was simply poking fun at you. If you are going to try to call any old increase in costs a "tax", then these ridiculously rising health care and health care insurance costs are indeed a "tax" as well. Try as you might, you can't have it both ways, you know...
Tax: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.
I used to at least respect some of the Collectivists in this forum because they were only defending their foundational beliefs. The attempts now made by some to redefine the english language to obscure their agenda is simply deceitful and testifies to the fact they cannot defend the tax rationally. It is truly a sad day for the intellectual elite who believe in and fight to further the progress of Collectivism when they must hide their understanding of even the simplest of english words while defending their beliefs.
You should try to follow along more closely before launching off into inane collectivist confabulations...
It would certainly not be a tax simply because the IRS collected it. Taxes meanwhile are defined as a levy or assessment against a person or other entity on account of some possession or action. The payment contemplated here is in respect of not owning something and not doing something. It is hard to see how that can fit into the traditional definition of a tax. That said, Congress can define the payments any way they like.
-- <saganista>
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.
