Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Because that's where this country is headed, like it or not. The brilliance of "the Affordable Care Act" is that it will cost so much and do so little to make healthcare affordable that we're going to acquiesce to a socialized solution. Watch and see if that's not how it pans out.

Oh ok, I see where you are coming from now. Yeah, unfortunately the liberals have taken over and given people a sense that they don't have to work for anything.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Every other industrialized nation has national health care. We don't. If you think that makes us better, then there's no hope for you.

"There aren't nearly enough conservatives to stop it from happening"? My first instinct is to say, "Thank God!"

But the truth is different, isn't it? What will stop it isn't more conservatives, it's too many liberals having spines of jelly. They know what they want, but a few nasty right-wingers scare them into not going for it. They're afraid to actually act like Democrats, because they're afraid Wayne LaPierre or Grover Norquist or Dick Cheney or whoever runs the anti-choice movement now will call them a socialist or a traitor or the anti-Christ. It's like on The West Wing:

I'm tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I'm tired of getting them elected!

We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, "'Liberal' means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to!"

And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties...!", we cowered in the corner, and said, "Please. Don't. Hurt. Me."

No more. Let's have two parties, huh? What do you say?

*

This nation needs a strong liberal party, to ensure that government does what it must. It also needs a strong conservative party, to ensure that government doesn't go too far.

The problem is, right now, the party working like crazy to make sure that government doesn't go too far is the Democratic Party. They're working their kiesters off to make sure that the reforms of the 20th Century aren't all dismantled. While the Republican Party is working to do that dismantling. There is no strong liberal party in this country: There's a lukewarm conservative party, a crazy authoritarian party, and a great liberal constituency crying out for someone to step up and say, "You're right, and I will fight for what you demand."

We wanted universal health care. We got Obamacare.

We wanted an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We got the former, and the promise of the latter, and we're staying tuned.

We wanted gay marriage. We've gotten it in a few States, but not in a majority, or even in enough States to provide 270 Electoral Votes.

We wanted a government that respects the truth that corporations are not people. We're still waiting for it.

We wanted a big increase in the minimum wage. We're still waiting for it.

We wanted electric cars and a transition away from an oil-based economy. We got... the American auto industry saved. Which is important, but where's Step 2?

We wanted our crumbling schools, roads and bridges fixed and/or replaced. We're still waiting for it.

Socialism? This isn't even Social Democracy.

I know... I know... you want it all... and you want it paid for with other peoples' money. I get it.

 

[Comunitee]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Why would the government be funding them?

Because hardly anybody else can, and of those who can, nobody else will.

The private sector sure as hell won't do it, unless we threaten them with extinction -- like we did when we forced the Southern States to accept that black people were our equals. And if we forced the private sector to pay for health insurance for all their employees, you right-wingers would crap bricks.

And then you'd need health care.

 

[roughdraft274]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

It might be cheaper from some standpoints to hire 2 people at 19 hours each....no health insurance, and you're getting 38 hours.

I'd like to see fewer waivers. It was easy to shrug off a few at first, but at this rate there's hardly anybody that actually has to abide by the law.

Just making sure that you know that the waivers are temporary only. For one year I believe. Almost any company that wanted one could get it if they just claimed they needed more time to comply or it would hurt business etc.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Because hardly anybody else can, and of those who can, nobody else will.

The private sector sure as hell won't do it, unless we threaten them with extinction -- like we did when we forced the Southern States to accept that black people were our equals. And if we forced the private sector to pay for health insurance for all their employees, you right-wingers would crap bricks.

And then you'd need health care.

Health Care Heroes ? Dr. Josh Umbehr - Wichita Business Journal

 

[Comunitee]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Socialism? This isn't even Social Democracy.

I know... I know... you want it all... and you want it paid for with other peoples' money. I get it.

Who else is going to pay for it? The rest of us can't afford it.

Children can't buy what they need -- their parents do. Why? Because they're the ones who have the money. At least, in theory.

The poor and the middle class can't buy what they need -- the rich should. Why? Because they're the ones who have the money.

This country allowed them to become rich. They need to start giving something back. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

 

[Papa bull]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Socialism? This isn't even Social Democracy.



Who else is going to pay for it? The rest of us can't afford it.

Children can't buy what they need -- their parents do. Why? Because they're the ones who have the money. At least, in theory.

The poor and the middle class can't buy what they need -- the rich should. Why? Because they're the ones who have the money.

This country allowed them to become rich. They need to start giving something back. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

And you've convinced yourself that you should have whatever you feel you "need" no matter what it costs because OTHER people can afford it. You NEED food, shelter and clothing. And you should NEED to work for those things like every other creature does. But not only do you want those things guaranteed for you whether you work or not and whether you can pay for them or not. You want to the Nanny State to put bandaids on your boo-boos for you for free even if they're million dollar bandaids.

Color me a heartless villain if you want, but it's your life and you should be the one working to sustain it.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

That, of course, guts the whole program.

RE the Mandates? not at all. If you leave in place the exchange options and hone the preexisting condition position it would be just fine. (and hey...considering ALL the people that are 'for' Obamacare then there should be no requirement for a 'mandate'...they will be tripping over themselves to sign up for the plans). It is still mind numbing the number of people that think businesses should be responsible for their employees healthcare, but if you are going to force that, then remove any and all exemptions. Thats just garbage and smacks of politics. Oh...and I would MANDATE any and all federally elected official regardless of party be limited ONLY to the government offered healthcare plans, including their families until their children are age 26 and up.

Health care is better left to the states. Period. Better funded by citizens of those states.

 

[Comunitee]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

And you've convinced yourself that you should have whatever you feel you "need" no matter what it costs because OTHER people can afford it. You NEED food, shelter and clothing. And you should NEED to work for those things like every other creature does. But not only do you want those things guaranteed for you whether you work or not and whether you can pay for them or not. You want to the Nanny State to put bandaids on your boo-boos for you for free even if they're million dollar bandaids.

Color me a heartless villain if you want, but it's your life and you should be the one working to sustain it.

I do work for those things. But I don't get paid enough to buy them. If people who work got proper compensation, NONE of the government's financial protections would be necessary.

If people were paid fairly, we would only need the government to protect us from foreign predators and natural disasters. Instead, we have domestic predators, who call themselves "job creators" and do no such thing, and keep wages artificially low. Most people work just hard enough to not get fired, because they get paid just enough to not quit.

What you call "the Nanny State" wouldn't be necessary if you people on the right gave a damn about the people. What is the opposite of the Nanny State? It's the Abusive Caretaker State.

 

[Comunitee]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

RE the Mandates? not at all. If you leave in place the exchange options and hone the preexisting condition position it would be just fine. (and hey...considering ALL the people that are 'for' Obamacare then there should be no requirement for a 'mandate'...they will be tripping over themselves to sign up for the plans). It is still mind numbing the number of people that think businesses should be responsible for their employees healthcare, but if you are going to force that, then remove any and all exemptions. Thats just garbage and smacks of politics. Oh...and I would MANDATE any and all federally elected official regardless of party be limited ONLY to the government offered healthcare plans, including their families until their children are age 26 and up.

Health care is better left to the states. Period. Better funded by citizens of those states.

No. The States cannot be trusted. Ever heard of Texas?

States do not have rights. People do. If you doubt this, I refer you to April 9, 1865.

 

[Comunitee]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

And you've convinced yourself that you should have whatever you feel you "need" no matter what it costs because OTHER people can afford it. You NEED food, shelter and clothing. And you should NEED to work for those things like every other creature does. But not only do you want those things guaranteed for you whether you work or not and whether you can pay for them or not. You want to the Nanny State to put bandaids on your boo-boos for you for free even if they're million dollar bandaids.

Color me a heartless villain if you want, but it's your life and you should be the one working to sustain it.

I am working to sustain it. But I can't sustain it, because I don't get paid enough.

What part don't you understand? If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation from the 1960s onward, it would now be about $21 an hour. And it wouldn't have to be raised. And we could afford health care, and everything else we need.

But, no, you're NOT a heartless villain. That would be the propagandists who feed you. You're just their tool.

 

[GottaGo]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Socialism? This isn't even Social Democracy.



Who else is going to pay for it? The rest of us can't afford it.

Children can't buy what they need -- their parents do. Why? Because they're the ones who have the money. At least, in theory.

The poor and the middle class can't buy what they need -- the rich should. Why? Because they're the ones who have the money.

This country allowed them to become rich. They need to start giving something back. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Dollar for dollar, they already do give back. In addition to taxes, they build hospitals, and libraries and create foundations and grants, give money to charities, etc. The rest of the citizens in total can't even come close to what they give.

No, they don't owe anybody anything, they worked for their money, just the same as anyone else. The difference between children/parents and rich/everybody else is personal responsibility... I shouldn't be required to support someone elses children, and they shouldn't be supporting mine.

How easy it is to spend other people's money, eh?

 

[Papa bull]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

I do work for those things. But I don't get paid enough to buy them. If people who work got proper compensation, NONE of the government's financial protections would be necessary.

If people were paid fairly, we would only need the government to protect us from foreign predators and natural disasters. Instead, we have domestic predators, who call themselves "job creators" and do no such thing, and keep wages artificially low. Most people work just hard enough to not get fired, because they get paid just enough to not quit.

What you call "the Nanny State" wouldn't be necessary if you people on the right gave a damn about the people. What is the opposite of the Nanny State? It's the Abusive Caretaker State.

Fair pay is whatever you negotiate. If you don't think you're getting paid what you're worth, take your service elsewhere and get someone else to pay you what you're really worth. If you can't find someone to pay you what you think you're worth, then you're wrong about what you think you're worth.

If you want more for your product (probably labor in your case), then you need to either do a better job of marketing your product or you need a better product - or both. If you aren't getting proper compensation for what you do that's your own fault. I know that probably gets your blood pressure rising just hearing it put so bluntly, but it's the truth.

 

[GottaGo]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

I do work for those things. But I don't get paid enough to buy them. If people who work got proper compensation, NONE of the government's financial protections would be necessary.

If people were paid fairly, we would only need the government to protect us from foreign predators and natural disasters. Instead, we have domestic predators, who call themselves "job creators" and do no such thing, and keep wages artificially low. Most people work just hard enough to not get fired, because they get paid just enough to not quit.

What you call "the Nanny State" wouldn't be necessary if you people on the right gave a damn about the people. What is the opposite of the Nanny State? It's the Abusive Caretaker State.

YOU create your worth in the market. It is up to YOU to make sure you are paid what you're worth, no one else. If you're not worth it, then you won't get it.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

What part don't you understand? If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation from the 1960s onward, it would now be about $21 an hour.

Actually, the minimum wage has done a very good job of keeping pace with inflation. We've fallen behind a bit but your $21.00 an hour figure is almost 3X higher than what would be correct.

Minimum wage in 1960 was 1.00 an hour. Today, that would be $7.90. Minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. We're not off by that much.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

No. The States cannot be trusted. Ever heard of Texas?

States do not have rights. People do. If you doubt this, I refer you to April 9, 1865.

States CAN be trusted to take care of the needs of their own people if that is what their own people WANT. TRUST...like as in trust in the fed? The 17 trillion in debt and climbing fed? the fed with massive fraud in SS and Medicare Fed/ the fed that cant so much as pass a budget fed?

If states want health care then states should decide that, and most importantly, states should FUND that. Instead, people dump it to the fed because they know the fed will just bundle up any new debt and pass it on to future generations.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

I do work for those things. But I don't get paid enough to buy them. If people who work got proper compensation, NONE of the government's financial protections would be necessary.

If people were paid fairly, we would only need the government to protect us from foreign predators and natural disasters. Instead, we have domestic predators, who call themselves "job creators" and do no such thing, and keep wages artificially low. Most people work just hard enough to not get fired, because they get paid just enough to not quit.

What you call "the Nanny State" wouldn't be necessary if you people on the right gave a damn about the people. What is the opposite of the Nanny State? It's the Abusive Caretaker State.

Rather than being a whiny bitch, why dont YOU and your "very liberal" friends go create those Jobs Meccas you bleat on about? Why is it that ALL you can do is whine, bitch, and complain about those that ARE taking risks and creating jobs? What the **** is wrong with YOU and YOUR ilk? I mean...come on...you KNOW so much...right? Its so EASY, right? Then why dont you DO it? Why arent those liberal jobs machines just a CRANKING em out?

 

[MaggieD]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Actually, the minimum wage has done a very good job of keeping pace with inflation. We've fallen behind a bit but your $21.00 an hour figure is almost 3X higher than what would be correct.

Minimum wage in 1960 was 1.00 an hour. Today, that would be $7.90. Minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. We're not off by that much.

I never thought of it that way . . . but that's a distorted picture. It ignores compounding. I'm not sure one can determine the real number without some painstaking calculations.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

I never thought of it that way . . . but that's a distorted picture. It ignores compounding. I'm not sure one can determine the real number without some painstaking calculations.

Actually, it's a very accurate picture because what you're measuring is buying power. Something that cost 1.00 in 1960 will cost $7.90 today. So if you earned 1.00 an hour in 1960 for minimum wage, the value of that today would be $7.90 and $7.90 would be the inflation adjusted figure that would equate to same/same between 1960 and 2013. Compounding doesn't apply to this.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

speaking of compounding, Maggie. Let me explain that if you invested 1.00 in 1960, you would, through compounding interest (there's your compounding) have to have had it increase in value to $7.90 to keep up with inflation. Now we have a good example of why capital gains need to be taxed less than regular income. If you bought an investment for $1.00 in 1960 and sold it today for $7.90, you would be taxed on the $6.90 that your asset appreciated when, IN FACT, you didn't actually get any wealthier because that $7.90 today is the same as $1.00 when you bought it. You did, essentially, buy something for a dollar and sell it years later and recouped the value of that dollar, but are getting taxed as though you just made $6.90 cents instead of breaking even on that dollar investment.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

IMO it is way too early to say what needs to be fixed about a law that has not yet fully gone into effect.

I also believe that single-payer is the way to go. However, I for one am willing to give the ACA a shot. We can already tell from results in Massachusetts that it will not be Armageddon. That said, and based on results in Massachusetts:

• Put more effort into redirecting non-emergency patients to non-emergency care
• healthcare.gov needs to get in shape soon
• states need to stop being obstructionist about the law

 

[Visbek]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Let me explain that if you invested 1.00 in 1960, you would, through compounding interest (there's your compounding) have to have had it increase in value to $7.90 to keep up with inflation....

The capital gains taxes are not in any way linked to inflation.

There are only two tax splits: Short-term (1 year) and Long-term (more than 1 year). Your capital gains tax also depends on your tax bracket.

Nor was there any intention of reducing taxes on capital gains in order to adjust for inflation; the overt intent of the tax break was to encourage people to invest and buy stocks. It has also wound up being a huge tax break for the wealthy, since most Americans own very little stock.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Actually, the minimum wage has done a very good job of keeping pace with inflation.

No, it really hasn't.

The correct phrase is: "Minimum wages are far below their highs, adjusted for inflation, in the 1960s and 70s."

 

[Fenton]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

I think people should drop coverage, pay the fine and then buy insurance when they get ill.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

The capital gains taxes are not in any way linked to inflation.

That is correct. But they should be.