New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

[Tiassa]

A Cynical Heart?

We already pay a tax of 2.9% (half directly paid by the employee and half by the employer) and those making over $200k pay an extra .9% all for a program (Medicare) that only covers those over age 65. Now we've got additional ObamaCare taxes on top of that and we still will not achieve universal coverage.

You, sir, do not get to complain about a lack of universal coverage. The individual mandate was never, even in Republican hands, about universal coverage. It was the alternative to universal coverage. You know, the one where we sacrifice a few people at the altar in order to avoid the appearance of socialism.

You want to complain about taxes? Fine, go ahead.

But, you know, I get it; since you complain about taxes so much, nobody would notice.

So let's add in a dash of concern for a policy you've opposed?

(chortle!)

Or .... are you officially throwing your hat into the universal healthcare column? I mean, hey, I'll take that, too.

Because the morbid humor about the GOP's rejection of Obamacare is that if the individual mandate fails, the next place to go is universal healthcare through a single-payer plan. It would be macabre if the whole time conservatives actually wanted single-payer, universal coverage but were afraid to admit it, and have thus put up a decades-long neurotic tantrum about it.

On the other hand, if that's the case, we can thank all the lambs we've slaughtered to appease the right-wing moloch and finally set aside all of the extra-petty bean-counting about who deserves what, so that we can get on with the actual business of living.

 

[paddoboy]

We already pay a tax of 2.9% (half directly paid by the employee and half by the employer) and those making over $200k pay an extra .9% all for a program (Medicare) that only covers those over age 65. Now we've got additional ObamaCare taxes on top of that and we still will not achieve universal coverage.

The main aim is making sure everyone gets coverage is it not?
I'm not that into USA politics and such, but its a bit rich complaining about how much tax one pays, when people can't afford any hospital/medical coverage.

From my position I would hazard a guess and say that Insurance companies seem to be the problem.
When we in Australia first introduced our Universal health care system in 1972/73, Insurance companies went bonkers and were wringing their hands in despair.
Guess what? They are still wringing their hands in despair!

 

[joepistole]

The main aim is making sure everyone gets coverage is it not?
I'm not that into USA politics and such, but its a bit rich complaining about how much tax one pays, when people can't afford any hospital/medical coverage.

From my position I would hazard a guess and say that Insurance companies seem to be the problem.
When we in Australia first introduced our Universal health care system in 1972/73, Insurance companies went bonkers and were wringing their hands in despair.
Guess what? They are still wringing their hands in despair!

Indeed, and the insurance companies are just a fraction of our healthcare troubles in The United States. Mad refers to Medicare which is the most efficient and effective healthcare system in the US today. And it is a program which insures the sickest among us, the elderly, the disabled, etc.

"Yet on a per capita basis, Medicare spending is projected to grow at a slower rate than private health insurance spending over the next decade (3.6% vs. 5.0%), and slower than it did in the past decade (Figure 2)." - The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/

In the US, the supply of physicians, drugs, health insurance and medical devices are all restricted and controlled way beyond the need for quality control and into the realm of market manipulation in order to keep prices for medical services and products more than twice as expensive as anywhere else in the world. And as a result our healthcare costs have continued to grow at multiples of the growth in our incomes. Healthcare in the US has been kept artificially high in order to line the pockets of healthcare special interests and now those special interests are unhappy because the gravy train is coming to an end. They will have to compete with the rest of us...poor boys. I guess we should all weep for them.

 

[spidergoat]

The ONLY thing that differentiates the Government from any other group of people is it's legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people.

I would say the only thing that differentiates government from other groups is the authority to exercise force. Innocent or guilty depends on what society has determined are crimes. Without government there is no civilization. Civilization is thus dependent on the organized use of force to enforce it's rules. A society without formalized rules only works on a smaller level, that of a tribe or village, in which case the force is exercised by a mob or local strongman.

That's it. Government is purposely built around a core of immorality. Which is why you won't find Government alleviating poverty - poverty has only grown since the Government decided to have a "War on Poverty". Of course, it runs counter to the very nature of government.

You are only talking about a capitalist society, not government in general. The use of force alone to enforce the rules of society is not immoral. It's what civilization is based on.

But our Prisons - now here's a success story. We have the largest prison populations per person on the planet. Pollution - yes, more success. Our government is the greatest polluter earth has ever known. War - you couldn't ask for a better killing machine than the US Government. Violating our fourth amendment - yes, it's getting into that business too. Teach a child to read and write? Not to good on that front given some demographics have a lower literacy rate now compared with 1910.


Government doesn't prevent organized corruption - Government IS organized corruption.

It's organization. It might be corrupted by money, or it might not be, it all depends on what kind of government it is.

 

[iceaura]

Our's is simply a levy on annual earnings of 1.5% for low and middle income earners and 2.5% for higher income earners.
The extra 1% levy can be waived if private insurance is taken out.

We already pay a tax of 2.9% (half directly paid by the employee and half by the employer) and those making over $200k pay an extra .9% all for a program (Medicare) that only covers those over age 65. Now we've got additional ObamaCare taxes on top of that and we still will not achieve universal coverage.

Sucks to be stuck, for sure - do you remember, btw, what happened to all those lefty liberal Wellstone era proposals that would have set the US up like those other countries, only better?

Sure you do.

 

[Michael]

The most transparent Administration ever.

[video=youtube;QHWEUPOFO8M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWEUPOFO8M#t=34[/video]


Well, you got to admit one thing, ObamaCare is an absolute success at diverting attention away from the Federal Reserve bailing out the top 1% through the banks and stocks they own.

 

[Michael]

John Stossel - Food Police Fatheads

ObamaCare will now make it illegal to sell fast food without posting the caloric content, even though:
1. Researchers at New York University published a study in thne International Journal of Obesity showing this did nothing to alter eating behavior.
2 Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University published a study in the American Journal of Public Health showing this did nothing to alter eating behavior.
3. Researchers at Yale published a study in the American Journal of Public Health showing this did nothing to alter eating behavior.

Oh, and it's not 'calories' per say, it's where the calories come from that's important. But, hey, why let something like science get in the way of good old fashioned progressive demagoguery. Oh, and why let the free-market attempt to solve this problem - the free market (that's to say, free interactions between free people) is BeeeeeAD. You know, those greedy sum-a-beeches might raise premiums on obese people while lowering it on people who regularly exercise - that's not fair, they may make insurance higher for places like McDonald's - that's not fair, or some other innovative solution we would have never thought of - and thanks to Government never will think of - that's not fair. No, we wouldn't want that when we have our "Lawmakers" .... Oh, I mean Civil Servants and their 13th month extra-pay making the 'Adult' decisions for us. Yes, we should just sit at the children's table and wait for them to decide for us, how we should live our lives.


It should be noted: This means all these citizens have lost their civil liberty to sell food without a caloric count per item. This is, by definition, a loss of prosperity (time + civil liberty). Society is LESS prosperous as 'free' citizens (*cough* tax cattle *cough*) are now being FORCED to spend their Time determining average caloric count as well as have lost their Civil Liberties and now MUST, by Law, thanks to ObamaCare, sell food with these nonsensical, evidently useless, caloric labels. This means, the Government is willing to send a couple of real police officers, with real guns, over to an innocent citizen's private property (their business) stick these guns in their real face, drag them out and into a real car and lock them away in a real rape-cage for the "crime" of selling a burger without a useless caloric count. THIS IS A RETURN TO THE JUNGLE. If people really wanted caloric counts on their menu - THEN THEY'D BUY AT RESTAURANTS WITH THEM. It's that simple. They don't, because they don't give a shit. I know this concept, called liberty, is extremely difficult to understand - but, I promise, it's really not that difficult. The free-market is us conducting voluntary interaction with one anther. Our money is our vote. Government should ONLY have the LIMITED role in ensuring the law is upheld, the US Constitutions. That's it. It's not needed for anything other than that.


Welcome to Life in a Progressive Democratic State. If you're lucky, you'll get to watch your city melt into a shit-hole like the Progressive Paradise of Detroit where after 40 years of uninterrupted rule by Progressive Democratic 'Servants" the City's children are mostly functionally illiterate - oh, but their teachers get a 13th month extra pay, on us, the tax payer; aren't we nice.



Oh, it doesn't end there. Our political "Servants" have decided we really can't be trusted with making our own decisions - they'll take care of the thinking. We're just the peons that pay their salary - what do we know? We all remember how they want to making it illegal to sell large fountain sodas in an environmentally friendly paper cup - while at the same time leaving it perfectly legal to sell 3L soda in non-biodegradable plastic bottle. Nice one Government.

But did you know this? The Progressive Democratic Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (D-Brooklyn) wants to make TABLE SALT illegal! Can you imagine?? This dumb arse thinks he has the right to make salt - SALT, illegal. You know, because he's your Nanny. And that's what you like - a f*cking Nanny to wipe your arse for you. Felix has no problem taking away your liberty - making you less prosperous, for you own good, because he (right along with all these sociopath Authoritarians) thinks he knows best. AND he's more than happy to send a clown in a blue clown suite over to your house and put you in a rape-cage to make his point. You may not realize it yet, but these people are sociopaths. They don't think like you or I. They have no emotional connection to any issue. Your healthcare is nothing to them. They will side or not side with Obamacare - taking a side is meaningless to them. All they crave is power. 1 in 25 Americans falls onto the sociopath spectrum. I promise you, most of those people are working in Government.

[video=youtube;S_os8as_WMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_os8as_WMI[/video]

 

[spidergoat]

Oh cry me a river, there will be a calorie count next to the menu, big deal. Ignore it if you want. Stossel is a right wing blowhard.

 

[Michael]

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/14/yes-incentives-matter-obamacares-incentives-terrible/

In California, a couple earning $64,000 a year would not qualify for health care subsidies. A bronze plan for them through Kaiser would cost them about $1,300 each month, or $15,600 a year. But if that same family earned just $2,000 less, it would qualify for over $14,000 in annual health care subsidies, dropping their premiums for that same Kaiser plan to less than $100 per month.

The after-insurance income for the couple earning $64,000 is $48,400. The after-insurance income for the couple making $62,000, which is just under the 400% FPL threshold, is $60,800.

It therefore makes no sense for a rational couple on the FPL bubble to work a little harder to earn a little extra money, because Obamacare severely punishes them for their work ethic. That couple ends up significantly worse off for having tried to earn more money. And we’re not talking about an effective marginal tax rate of 40 or 50 or even 90 percent here. If you’re on the FPL bubble, the effective marginal tax rate is in the neighborhood of 10,000 percent. That next dollar you earn could result in you losing over $10,000 in health care benefits.

Just as Obamacare created huge incentives for employers to either dump health plans, dump hours, or dump workers, it also created horribly perverse incentives for otherwise hard-working people to not work so hard. The result? Fewer jobs, lower incomes, and less economic growth.

I've seen this movie.

<--- D.E.T.R.O.I.T C.I.T.Y. --->

 

[Michael]

Oh cry me a river, there will be a calorie count next to the menu, big deal. Ignore it if you want. Stossel is a right wing blowhard.

It's not the calorie count that's a big deal, it's the fact someone dressed in a blue clown suite can (and will) come to your private business, point a gun at your head, maybe even shoot you in the head, and drag you off to a rape-cage - if you don't comply with something that you just said is no big deal. If THAT isn't the very definition of sociopathy - I'm not sure then, what is. The framers of the Constitution understood government - they limited it's effect on the public on purpose. They added the Bill of Rights because even at that early stage they could see it was going off the rails. They also LIMITED the vote. Americans only directly voted on members of the House - which is why the House controls spending. Which is ironic given all the shit whatshisface was given for exercising the one and only right the US Constitutions empowered the People with, the right to limit spending; which was supposed to check the Senate. Of course, back then Senators weren't elected by general election and so they didn't' have to sell out future generations in order to get elected and didn't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator by giving away goodies (like ObamaCare), as is the case today). The POTUS similarly wasn't elected by general election (and still isn't).

We become a less prosperous people each and every time one of these 'law makers' concocts some harebrained scheme to demagogue the public. We have, volumes and volumes and volumes of these laws. There are so many laws, it becomes a burden to even bother trying to start a business. Which is why you see the proliferation of chain-stores in place of mom and pop stores, which reduces competition, leaving workers to compete for fewer and fewer jobs. Which they then turn to the same institution of sociopaths that made the problem - to fix the problem. And the problem gets worse.

We HAD a system for determining this sort of thing, it was called the free-market. It meant that if people really and truly wanted something like a calorie count on their menu - then they'd go to the restaurants that had that. Those restaurants would see their business profits increase. Those profits would signal to the market that this was desirable and it would be repeated by others. No need of a gun. It's a completely different society. One (that we somewhat had) based on freedom, and the other based on force. One where prosperity ensues, the other where it is lost.

We ARE and will become a less prosperous nation. It's baked in the cake. There is no turning this ship around. The best option we have now is to elect all 'progressive' Democrats, let them spend till their hearts delights, enjoy a good long party and sink this bad boy. What's progressive today, is tradition tomorrow. I figure it'd take about 20-30 years, about a generation. Just keep taxing and spending. Grown that government. Let's just send this f*cker right to the bottom. Everyone lock hands and elect the progressive who promises the most. MOAR free roads, MOAR free public education, MOAR MOAR MOOOOAR

It's really the only way. Anything else is just a slow burn as our wealth is siphoned off to the elite and our civil liberties greatly lost. Don't fight. Just go with the flow. Full collapse - that's the lesson we need. It's the nature of civilization. Rise and Fall. Doesn't have to be this way, but seems to eventually happen. So, the quicker we get pointed at the iceberg the better. Hand full control over to Captain Oblahma, raise anchors and set sail! ARHHHRRRGH!!! *points stubby wooden arm towards the salty sea*

 

[Michael]

I would say the only thing that differentiates government from other groups is the authority to exercise force.

This isn't true. A private individual or group of individuals can legally exercise force in self-defense. The government as well. What makes government different is it has the legal obligation to exercise force offensively - against innocent people (see: War on Drugs).

Innocent or guilty depends on what society has determined are crimes

Innocent has two meanings, one an adjective (as you used it) and one a noun (as I used it).

In KSA an 8 year old child-bride who attempts to run away from her pedo husband on their wedding night because she doesn't want to be raped, is guilty and in the past could be murdered/executed by the State. In this way, if a person asked "Is this child innocent", the judge would reply no referring to innocent as an adjective. The State did what it was built to do, and obligated to perform, initiation of force against an innocent. Thus, that same judge may say, the child did nothing immoral and is innocent - in the sense of a noun (well, actually it's second adjective meaning too .

Without government there is no civilization. Civilization is thus dependent on the organized use of force to enforce it's rules. A society without formalized rules only works on a smaller level, that of a tribe or village, in which case the force is exercised by a mob or local strongman.

This is a circular argument. You're saying without Force there is no civilization, therefor civilization is dependent on force.

It'd be like saying: Without the Bible there is no morality, therefor morality is dependent on the Bible.

A society without formalized rules only works on a smaller level, that of a tribe or village, in which case the force is exercised by a mob or local strongman.

I agree, society needs formalized rules or 'laws' or 'agreements/contracts'. However, international 'rules' have no 'Government' to enforce them - yet they are by and large obeyed (and presently make up the basis of trillions of dollars in international trade). International trade has occurred without international government for thousands of years. People sometimes cheat, but by and large they don't because they want to keep making money. See, when the trade is agreed upon, it's agreed upon by BOTH individuals. Both stand to gain something out of the deal. Both want the trade - and more of it if they can get it. The reputation and chances at more trade is worth more than a simple one-off trade (well, normally). Often people will start with small 'test' trades and build up relationships. In some cases they even marry into families. But, there IS NO international government to enforce the 'Law'. International trade is voluntary. There is contract, there is law, courts are private, judges are private and arbitration is private - yet people volunteer to adhere to those judgments each and every day - without any legal means to use force against these people. Just the treat of no more trade is enough to get people to comply.

THAT my dear spidergoat, IS civilization. This should be the goal. Not more government.

You are only talking about a capitalist society, not government in general. The use of force alone to enforce the rules of society is not immoral. It's what civilization is based on.

Morality is like gravity, it's independent of Civilization. Greek Civilization was based on Slavery - that Slavery was indeed immoral then, as it is now.

Initiation of force against an innocent (noun) person, is immoral. If we want to live in a moral prosperous society - we'd do best to attempt to live up to that very simple axiom. All children are taught not to hit, to wait their turn, to share/trade. These rules don't change simply because someone calls this child an adult. Hell, I see a lot of adults that are still, really, just big children.

 

[Michael]

The Website is Fixable, Obamacare Isn't

It is also ironic that high-deductible, catastrophic plans are precisely what young people should be buying in the first place. They are inexpensive because they provide coverage for unlikely, but expensive, events. Routine care is best paid for out-of-pocket by value conscious consumers. But Obamacare outlaws these plans, in favor of what amounts to prepaid medical treatment that shifts the cost of services to taxpayers. In such a system, patients have no incentive to contain costs. Since the biggest factor driving health care costs higher in the first place has been the over use of insurance that results from government-provided tax incentives, and the lack of cost accountability that results from a third-party payer system, Obamacare will bend the cost curve even higher. The fact that Obamacare does nothing to rein in costs while providing an open-ended insurance subsidy may be good news for hospitals and insurance companies, but it's bad news for taxpayers, on whom this increased burden will ultimately fall.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Michael,

Reading your stuff has been fascinating. I know they will never admit to it, but you are wiping joe, pj, paddy, & spider's noses in their own defecation. Keep it up!!

Michael & everyone,

I find it interesting that one of the reasons we had to have obamacare is that anywhere from 15-43 million Americans were uninsured. However, we are finding out that soon as much as 93 million will be taken off their insurance. So we had to sacrifice everyone else's insurance so a few could have it.

Not everyone pays their taxes every year, but you do not hear government running around saying the system is broke and we need to fix it. Yet, we have force everyone to pay for the same insurance, and some of it we do not want or need, so the few who do not have it now do. The system is broke it was said, because of a few. We have the same issue with unpaid taxes, but there no cry to overhaul that system.

I wonder who knows why??? I know Michael knows, but do you? It something to do with force.

The Website is Fixable, Obamacare Isn't

It is also ironic that high-deductible, catastrophic plans are precisely what young people should be buying in the first place. They are inexpensive because they provide coverage for unlikely, but expensive, events. Routine care is best paid for out-of-pocket by value conscious consumers. But Obamacare outlaws these plans, in favor of what amounts to prepaid medical treatment that shifts the cost of services to taxpayers. In such a system, patients have no incentive to contain costs. Since the biggest factor driving health care costs higher in the first place has been the over use of insurance that results from government-provided tax incentives, and the lack of cost accountability that results from a third-party payer system, Obamacare will bend the cost curve even higher. The fact that Obamacare does nothing to rein in costs while providing an open-ended insurance subsidy may be good news for hospitals and insurance companies, but it's bad news for taxpayers, on whom this increased burden will ultimately fall.

 

[spidergoat]

This isn't true....

Without force there are no laws. Without laws there is no civilization. Maybe someday we can have anarchy where people are responsible and sane enough to voluntarily regulate society, but that can't happen now.

 

[pjdude1219]

Michael,

Reading your stuff has been fascinating. I know they will never admit to it, but you are wiping joe, pj, paddy, & spider's noses in their own defecation. Keep it up!!

Michael & everyone,

I find it interesting that one of the reasons we had to have obamacare is that anywhere from 15-43 million Americans were uninsured. However, we are finding out that soon as much as 93 million will be taken off their insurance. So we had to sacrifice everyone else's insurance so a few could have it.

Not everyone pays their taxes every year, but you do not hear government running around saying the system is broke and we need to fix it. Yet, we have force everyone to pay for the same insurance, and some of it we do not want or need, so the few who do not have it now do. The system is broke it was said, because of a few. We have the same issue with unpaid taxes, but there no cry to overhaul that system.

I wonder who knows why??? I know Michael knows, but do you? It something to do with force.

so you think the ultracrepidarianst is right and people who actually base their beliefs on factual evidence untainted by bias are wrong? I feel sorry for you man

 

[Grumpy]

Ghostwriter

I find it interesting that one of the reasons we had to have obamacare is that anywhere from 15-43 million Americans were uninsured. However, we are finding out that soon as much as 93 million will be taken off their insurance.

There is no lessons learned by the second kick of a mule. We are replacing very very expensive Emergency Room primary care with insurance for all, it will save BILLIONS over the next decade. What part of that arte you incapable of getting? The only people who lost their insurance lost it because the Insurance companies dropped all their substandard, non-ACA compliant, huge deductible policies. Those policies were a complete ripoff and every one who had them can get much better policies at a lower price thanks to the ACA. All those dweebs on Fox boo-hooing about losing their policies were shown to be lying, the ACA didn't cancel those policies, it grandfathered every one of them in(thus the President did not lie). It was the Insurance companies that canceled those substandard policies. If your insurance has 10s of thousands as deductible, no hospitalization coverage, can be canceled if you actually get sick, doesn't cover pre-existing conditions, has yearly or lifetime caps, etc. it can no longer be sold as new insurance but you can keep it if your insurance company sells it. You would be a fool to do so, or cry about losing it and getting a better policy at a lower price, but people STILL vote Republican, so...

Grumpy

 

[Captain Kremmen]

These are teething problems.
Are teething problems covered by Obamacare?

 

[wegs]

My question may be over simplifying things so forgive me in advance, but why didn't the government just regulate the insurance companies (force) them to cover everyone (maybe allowing for reasonable policy exclusions), at affordable rates? This would have stimulated competition amongst insurance providers (carriers and brokers), across state lines as well, and the need for a government ''plan,'' could have been avoided. I'm not pro/against 'Obamacare' until I actually see how it plays out. It is too soon to tell, and it's absurd to think that a new initiative would have no kinks to work out. In any company, for example, when a new software program is rolled out--there are a lot of wrinkles to iron out before it is a streamlined, efficient process. The media is like a runaway train with this story, IT NEEDS AMPLE TIME TO WORK ITSELF OUT, before we can make an honest assessment as to if the new government plan will benefit anyone or not. And no healthcare program will benefit everyone equally for a number of reasons, so there has to be reasonable expectations in place, as well.

But, if someone could answer my question in bold, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Grumpy]

wegs

but why didn't the government just regulate the insurance companies (force) them to cover everyone (maybe allowing for reasonable policy exclusions), at affordable rates?

Because big pharma and the insurance companies have bought the Republican politicians outright and have made substantial down payments on some of the Democrats as well. What do you think the Shutdown was all about? Our government has been corrupted by cash, thanks Supreme Court.

Grumpy

 

[spidergoat]

My question may be over simplifying things so forgive me in advance, but why didn't the government just regulate the insurance companies (force) them to cover everyone (maybe allowing for reasonable policy exclusions), at affordable rates? This would have stimulated competition amongst insurance providers (carriers and brokers), across state lines as well, and the need for a government ''plan,'' could have been avoided. I'm not pro/against 'Obamacare' until I actually see how it plays out. It is too soon to tell, and it's absurd to think that a new initiative would have no kinks to work out. In any company, for example, when a new software program is rolled out--there are a lot of wrinkles to iron out before it is a streamlined, efficient process. The media is like a runaway train with this story, IT NEEDS AMPLE TIME TO WORK ITSELF OUT, before we can make an honest assessment as to if the new government plan will benefit anyone or not. And no healthcare program will benefit everyone equally for a number of reasons, so there has to be reasonable expectations in place, as well.

But, if someone could answer my question in bold, I'd appreciate it.

Because many younger people avoid getting insurance. The only way it can work is if everyone is involved. Hence the fines for not having insurance.