What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Rover said:
Meh.....perhaps in some limited cases with the state. Not so much with the local yokels. You can't say a state would have saved money if only they could go back to segregated schools, but the feds are forcing an unfunded mandate on us for example.
Click to expand...

Actually, you could in some indirect cases. For example, let's take the alcohol age. In the late 70's, while CT had a drinking age of 21, the NY drinking age was 18. During this time, the state of NY, as well as counties and municipalities as applicable, were receiving a healthy amount of sales, excise, property, and business income taxes from related establishments located near the border. And let's just assume, for the sake of argument, those patronizing these establishments were doing so in a responsible manner. Fast forward to 1982, when the federal government threatened to impose a tax on the monies allocated to federal highway funding should this law not be changed. Whether or not they would have used it for that is irrelevant, as is seen with Rhode Island's current example. What happened since then is that these establishments had to either downsize or fold due to the lack of business as indirectly imposed by the federal government, thereby reducing the aggregate amount of the aforementioned taxes collected.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

St. Clown said:
That must have really stung you, Scooby. Did you truly not have any concept of the amount of government services you were consuming? And the doc probably sent his kid to a private school, and thus not leech from the system like you, Scoobs.
Click to expand...
You overinflate my consumption. My consumption is strictly to Roads/Bridges and the School System. I have yet to use the Fire Dept. so you can put that with all the other "insurance" item taxation I pay. Since one kid is out of said school system that eliminates that from my yearly usage and since the other has a very high probability of going to private school next year that eliminates the other.

Despite that I'm sure I'm still a leech just because I exist. It's a nice dichotomy you conservatives have set up.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

ScoobyDoo said:
You overinflate my consumption. My consumption is strictly to Roads/Bridges and the School System. I have yet to use the Fire Dept. so you can put that with all the other "insurance" item taxation I pay. Since one kid is out of said school system that eliminates that from my yearly usage and since the other has a very high probability of going to private school next year that eliminates the other.

Despite that I'm sure I'm still a leech just because I exist. It's a nice dichotomy you conservatives have set up.
Click to expand...

That air you're breathing is more welfare you're leeching off a corporation. As soon as GoldmanMobilMart figures out a way to charge for it I expect them to. Think I'm kidding? They found a way to charge for water...
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

ScoobyDoo said:
You overinflate my consumption. My consumption is strictly to Roads/Bridges and the School System. I have yet to use the Fire Dept. so you can put that with all the other "insurance" item taxation I pay. Since one kid is out of said school system that eliminates that from my yearly usage and since the other has a very high probability of going to private school next year that eliminates the other.

Despite that I'm sure I'm still a leech just because I exist. It's a nice dichotomy you conservatives have set up.
Click to expand...
All of those great social services that we all pay for - that liberals cry out for, and the various police forces (FBI, Treasury, ATF, etc), the military, your money goes into those pots just like everyone else's. You absolutely benefit directly from the police and military, even if they are misused.

Back in the early 90's, it cost us about $1 million per lane mile to construct roads. That price has only gone up since then. Don't downplay that cost. And no, your gas taxes don't cover all of those costs.

At an TMR of ~8% in this state, and knowing that state paid between 65-75% of school funding here, it would take an income of ~$144,000 per child to have paid for you children's public educations, and your share of the road bills and all of the other state-level little goodies for which the loyal DFL'ers lobby. With two children, were you and your wife earning anywhere near $288,000 per year? If not, you and your wife weren't paying for their educations on your own.

Feel free to be eternally wounded by that thought, Scooby.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

St. Clown said:
All of those great social services that we all pay for - that liberals cry out for, and the various police forces (FBI, Treasury, ATF, etc), the military, your money goes into those pots just like everyone else's. You absolutely benefit directly from the police and military, even if they are misused.

Back in the early 90's, it cost us about $1 million per lane mile to construct roads. That price has only gone up since then. Don't downplay that cost. And no, your gas taxes don't cover all of those costs.

At an TMR of ~8% in this state, and knowing that state paid between 65-75% of school funding here, it would take an income of ~$144,000 per child to have paid for you children's public educations, and your share of the road bills and all of the other state-level little goodies for which the loyal DFL'ers lobby. With two children, were you and your wife earning anywhere near $288,000 per year? If not, you and your wife weren't paying for their educations on your own.

Feel free to be eternally wounded by that thought, Scooby.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but unlike the rest of the liberals I don't want any of it and don't care if I have it or not. As far as I'm concerned to balance the budget you can abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Public Schooling right now and I wouldn't even bat an eyelash. Quite frankly what gets my dander up is the inability of Paul Ryan or any of the other great budget balancers of our time to find any way to actually find and cut a program. And by cut I don't mean curbing the spending, or 15% across the board. I mean elimination of the program so it comes off the books.

For heaven's sake we finally got out of Iraq and I heard today that the Bone Man is pleading for Obama to take us back. This is the great conservative we have running the People's House?? Really??

And, what I find the most ironic of my being labeled a leech on society is the fact that I pay my taxes without incessantly whining about it while the folks who have way way more money than I do nothing but.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

"Leech" or "beneficiary"?

Same denotation, different connotation?

Reminds me of the old meme:

I am dedicated.
My spouse is determined.
My children are persistent.
My friends are stubborn.
People I dislike are mulish.
People I detest are pig-headed.

Such is the state of political "dialog" today.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Priceless said:
That air you're breathing is more welfare you're leeching off a corporation. As soon as GoldmanMobilMart figures out a way to charge for it I expect them too. Think I'm kidding? They found a way to charge for water...
Click to expand...

They'll be able to do it on the Martian surface come 2022.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Candide said:
Can someone post me an Obamacare horror story that hasn't been debunked???
Click to expand...


It's hard to debunk arithmetic....


Before Obama'care', 42 states with community rating provisions allowed a 5:1 ratio betwen the highest-premium policy offered and the lowest-premium policy offered.

Under Obama'care', this ratio is mandated to be no greater than 3:1.

In other words, if you are a young person who doesn't smoke and exercises regularly, your premium could be 1/6 that of an older person who is overweight and out of shape and smokes four packs a day. Obama'care' mandates that the younger healthier person's premium must be at least 1/4 that of the older unhealhy person's premium.

That's a mandated increase of 50%.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

FreshFish said:
It's hard to debunk arithmetic....


Before Obama'care', 42 states with community rating provisions allowed a 5:1 ratio betwen the highest-premium policy offered and the lowest-premium policy offered.

Under Obama'care', this ratio is mandated to be no greater than 3:1.

In other words, if you are a young person who doesn't smoke and exercises regularly, your premium could be 1/6 that of an older person who is overweight and out of shape and smokes four packs a day. Obama'care' mandates that the younger healthier person's premium must be at least 1/4 that of the older unhealhy person's premium.

That's a mandated increase of 50%.
Click to expand...

If you have four pencils and I have seven apples, how many pancakes will fit on the roof? Purple, because aliens don't wear hats.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

FlagDUDE08 said:
Who here noticed 42 USC Section 18115? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18115
Click to expand...

Whoever told you about it forgot to tell you what it means.

Let your friends at freerepublic.com explain it to you:
The section cited, Section 18115 talks about no penalty for an issuer, not an individual policy holder.
Click to expand...
I think the compound subject is confusing some readers. If we break it up, we get sentences such as, "No individual offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act ...".
That is, the paragraph affects an individual only if he "offer group or individual health insurance coverage." It is not relevant to an individual in his capacity as a purchaser of group or individual health insurance coverage.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Priceless said:
If you have four pencils and I have seven apples, how many pancakes will fit on the roof? Purple, because aliens don't wear hats.
Click to expand...


:confused: Is this some sort of socialist plot to take away our freedoms? :mad:
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

ScoobyDoo said:
They talked to and quoted the doctor that treated Ron Johnson's daughter. What better source do you want?
Click to expand...

Someone from Faux "News" to offer a fair and balanced perspective.

ETA: or in this case, the WSJ editorial page
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

ScoobyDoo said:
They talked to and quoted the doctor that treated Ron Johnson's daughter. What better source do you want?
Click to expand...
Doesn't Maddow write: "As Johnson sees it, 'Obamacare' would have forced Foker out of the medical field and prevented life saving-procedures from being developed."

Here is the opinion piece written by Johnson. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052748704662604576202203050970010.html

I don't think he says anything about Foker, or being forced out of the medical field. He does talk about the advances a so-called free market medical field developed, but Maddow's characterization is a bit of an exaggeration in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top