GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-11-2012, 19:30   #326
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,720


Hey doug - Most productive people have their own health insurance so they won't be paying the TAX.

Who pays the health insurance for poor folks who can't afford the TAX or health insurance?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:05   #327
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Nope! Haven't gotten there. Yes it was a math test and you get and F.

Actually you brought up the age thing in a futile attempt to make it look like I take “welfare”. You're confusing social programs and welfare. Or you're just trying to muddy the waters. You're trying to equate SS and medicare to welfare. Obamacare INCLUDES WELFARE!
a) Actually YOU brought up ages first (and how long you "paid into" SS) ... not me. No failure in my math/inference ... based on what you have given me. As I already said, enlighten me with your statistics if you are taking issue with what I've written ... as I have.

b) I haven't said or introduced or inferred in anyway the word "welfare" or that it is what you are taking by cashing your SS check. Let's be clear YOU are introducing and associating the world "welfare" with SS. I have not. Nor do I. SS and Medicare are socialized government programs. I will assume you are projecting again by throwing out the world "welfare" (see my earlier post about parallel psychological concept of closeted homosexuals that are gay bashers). Guilty much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Now I’ll admit SS and Medicare ARE social programs. However they aren’t “welfare” programs like what is built into Obomacare. Now keep reading because the explanation is forth coming… PLEASE TRY TO KEEP UP. I’ll admit I’m not the greatest English major but anyone that has half a brain and can put their liberal leanings aside should be able to follow.
SS and Medicare are SOCIALIST programs. I agree that they aren't "welfare". Don't worry about typos ... I'm not a spelling/grammar nazi (usually).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Will I except MY MONEY THAT THE GOVERNMENT STOLE when I reach retirement age? YOU BET YOUR ARSS!!!! Now let me explain. You're 41, you should be able keep up. I hope!

....

So here we go. The government (liberal/socialists) in their ultimate wisdom TOLD, didn’t ask or put to a public vote, (like Obobacare) TOLD The People, we’re going to be your banker, your CD holder, your stock market portfolio. We’re going to take a % of your earnings and invest it for you NO YOU CAN’T OPT OUT and when you reach 65 you will be able to retire and “we’ll give you your money back a little at a time until you die. Oh, and while we’re at it we’re going to FORCE your employer to pay an EQUAL amount so we’ll have plenty of money to ASSURE a retirement for YOU. We’ll put it in a special fund that can’t be touched. Now hole that thought.
You have a complete and utter misunderstanding on how SS works and how it was intended to work. SS was NEVER a program where the fed gov was going to take your money and "invest it for you" in some sort of lock box account... and then give it back to you "a little at a time" until you die". It was instead a social contract that the fed gov made with you, where you paid SS taxes, and in exchange you would receive an indexed, monthly amount upon retirement based on formula that used the amount of SS taxes paid in, how long you worked, and your retirement age (you can start receiving as early as 62 ... and postpone receiving until 70 (I believe ... date may be little diff now)).

Think about it ... if it were as you state it was ... how would the first recipients who received SS when it was implemented have been paid (i.e., they didn't put in!)?! In case you can't figure it out... SS recipients' payments are made using the current year's SS taxes received. There is a trust fund if surplus SS tax payments are received in a given year. It is government socialized retirement. The current SS tax payers ... are paying for the current SS recipients.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Had I/we not been forced to pay SS I could have put that money is CD’s, Stocks etc. ect. I had to deprive my family of certain things so I could use additional money THAT I EARNED to secure a REAL retirement rather than the pittance of MY and MY EMPLOYER(s)MONEY that the government is going to RETURN to me,

Remember I told you to hold that thought. OK here we go. Along the line the government STOLE MY RETIREMENT MONEY and put it in the “general fund”.

Now liberal/progressive/socialist sources are telling you it’s an entitlement program and YOU BELIEVE IT.
It IS AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM. Can you say "cognitive dissonance"?

The government can't "steal" tax receipts (you may not like the tax, but separate issue ... vote accordingly if you don't like it, or move, or start a revolution). This goes back to your misunderstanding of how SS works. It isn't put into an account and sitting there accruing for you. Already explained above. Google is your friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
So let me try this…. What if… the Government hadn’t FORCED… STOLEN “our” money. What if we had put it in a bank and the president of the bank stole it? You’d be all for the bank being responsible for keep it’s promise wouldn’t you? You would not call it entitlement or charity or a “social program” would you? You'd call it just what it was/is, a retirement plan that was looted.
What are you whining about? You WILL get your SS payment. Nobody stole what is coming to you based on the SOCIALIZED ENTITLEMENT CONTRACT you have. Again ... logic failure based on misunderstanding how SS works/what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Now you want to explain to my how those receiving their SS money compare to those on welfare. Would you like to explain how they/we could have opted out of “the social program” they want no part of? And then after the liberal/progressives/socialists STEAL our money they convince the sheeply morons that we're at fault and have something to be ashamed of. Only an idiot would believe SS to be = to welfare.
Welfare. Welfare. Welfare. You keep saying it. I didn't. Nor do I think it is ... I call it what is is: entitlements, socialized government entitlements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Of course your not embarrassed. Your a liberal/progressive. Actually you father earned the death benefit through his service, but your to stupid to realize that. You believe it's a welfare program. But you jumped on the FREE VA medical care didn't you. He earned that not you. And you're not embarrassed.
1) Further illustration of SS misunderstanding. The perfect irony of you calling me "stupid" is both shocking and hilarious at the same time. SS Survivor's benefits have nothing to do with military service. My father wasn't in the military. He did die at 40 though ... and had paid SS taxes during his working career up to that point. Hence, the social contract we have with SS is that if a parent die's, minor children of said parent get a set upon amount every month (I believe based on a formula similar to that used to calculate SS retirement amounts) until they reach adulthood. It isn't welfare. I I never said it was.

2) I received my VA and GI Bill benefits because I SERVED!! Failure again in understanding GI BILL and VA benefits. These two things (VA and GI Bill) had nothing to do with my father (again ... he never served in military). There was nothing FREE about it the GI Bill and VA medical care ... but it IS an example of a socialized entitlement based government program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
And that my friends is part of the problem with the country today. People aren't ashamed to take welfare. They believe they are entitled to it and demand that we pay for it.
Wait ... which is it? Is receiving SS Survivor's benefit for 2 years or VA medical benefits or GI Bill welfare or not? You just said in paragraph preceding the above that that isn't welfare. Yet ... in the next paragraph you say it is (and that I should be ashamed of receiving it). Hilarious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Now you want tell life stories? Believe me mine makes yours sound like a free ride.
OK ... whatever you say. I suppose I was right then that you had to walk uphill (both ways) to school, in the snow ... everyday?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Oh wait, you did take money that “YOU” didn’t earn so it pretty much was. I haven’t and won’t. I pay for MY SS and Medicare EVERY PAY CHECK and yes I want as much of MY money back as I can get.
Again ... I'll repeat ... you fail to understand how SS works. Your SS tax payments are paying for current SS recipients. You DON'T pay for YOUR SS and Medicare every paycheck, you pay for those in the program now. Look it up ... don't take my word for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Edited to add: Oh, BTW I thought you posted you were through debating with me. Liberals! Don't know their own mind but want to tell the rest of us what's best for us.
[/QUOTE]

What can I say ... too compelling not to have posted a response and smashed your twisted misunderstanding of SS.

.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:07   #328
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Hey doug - I have my own healthcare. I pay for it. I like it the way it is.
Guess what .... you can keep it. Obamacare will not impact you one bit ... beyond potentially decreasing the rate of increase of your insurance premiums and direct pay medical costs.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:10   #329
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Hey doug - why should a 22 year old guy be forced to buy health insurance he doesn't need?
Because a 22 year old guy can get hit by bus whether he chooses to or not. He, however, (starting in 2014 when Obamacare fully takes effect) will no longer be able to force you and I to pay for his medical care after said bus hits him ... because he CHOOSES not to be insured.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:13   #330
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Hey doug - if privately insured people pay for the uninsured in a defacto manner with higher premiums, how does making the uninsured pay a TAX to the government put money back in the pockets of the privately insured?
It is a stick and carrot thing. That is why it is called a tax penalty ... the "stick" in said analogy. It will, on a macro level, move those people that CAN afford to (but previously chose not to) to insure themselves ... thereby decreasing cost.

Your a smart guy. Right?
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:17   #331
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Guess what .... you can keep it. Obamacare will not impact you one bit ... beyond potentially decreasing the rate of increase of your insurance premiums and direct pay medical costs.
No. I can't. You folks are taking away my HSA. Why are you doing that?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:20   #332
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Hey doug - Most productive people have their own health insurance so they won't be paying the TAX.

Who pays the health insurance for poor folks who can't afford the TAX or health insurance?
It is a straw man argument. These same "poor folks" were already either:
a) Falling through the cracks and receiving their health care in the most cost prohibitive way ... the ER. Forgoing preventative care, thereby making a proverbial mountain (of costs) out of an anthill (e.g. 10 per month metformin prescription (the anthill) instead of a stroke and amputations (the mountain). Either way ... we were paying for it already. We will continue to under Obamacare .... just cheaper. or;
b) Already low income enough to be on Medicaid.

The only thing Obamacare will do is put more of these folks into scenario b (so scenario a won't occur as much .... again bringing down costs of health care overall at macro level).
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:20   #333
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Because a 22 year old guy can get hit by bus whether he chooses to or not. He, however, (starting in 2014 when Obamacare fully takes effect) will no longer be able to force you and I to pay for his medical care after said bus hits him ... because he CHOOSES not to be insured.
So don't treat him.

I know its hard for socialists, but tell the truth. 22 year old kids getting hit by busses and not paying their bill isn't the problem, is it? The fact is, 22 year olds don't consume healthcare. Old people do. Obamacare is designed to force the 22 year old into the system to pay for healthcare he won't be using, so you can get your hands on his money.

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 10-11-2012 at 20:21..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:21   #334
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Because a 22 year old guy can get hit by bus whether he chooses to or not. He, however, (starting in 2014 when Obamacare fully takes effect) will no longer be able to force you and I to pay for his medical care after said bus hits him ... because he CHOOSES not to be insured.
What if he just chooses to pay the fine instead of buying insurance?
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:22   #335
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
It is a straw man argument. These same "poor folks" were already either:
a) Falling through the cracks and receiving their health care in the most cost prohibitive way ... the ER. Forgoing preventative care, thereby making a proverbial mountain (of costs) out of an anthill (e.g. 10 per month metformin prescription (the anthill) instead of a stroke and amputations (the mountain). Either way ... we were paying for it already. We will continue to under Obamacare .... just cheaper. or;
b) Already low income enough to be on Medicaid.

The only thing Obamacare will do is put more of these folks into scenario b (so scenario a won't occur as much .... again bringing down costs of health care overall at macro level).

Hey doug - how do you provide more healthcare to more people and do it for less money?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:24   #336
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,720


Hey doug - healthcare is a limited resource. What happens when you give it to everyone?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:24   #337
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
It is a straw man argument. These same "poor folks" were already either:
a) Falling through the cracks and receiving their health care in the most cost prohibitive way ... the ER. Forgoing preventative care, thereby making a proverbial mountain (of costs) out of an anthill (e.g. 10 per month metformin prescription (the anthill) instead of a stroke and amputations (the mountain). Either way ... we were paying for it already. We will continue to under Obamacare .... just cheaper. or;
b) Already low income enough to be on Medicaid.

The only thing Obamacare will do is put more of these folks into scenario b (so scenario a won't occur as much .... again bringing down costs of health care overall at macro level).
The only thing obamacare will do is increase bureaucracy, increase costs and decrease healthcare availability.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:28   #338
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,720


Hey doug - can you provide a single other area where the government has inserted itself and decreased cost while increasing quality?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:32   #339
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Hey doug - can you provide a single other area where the government has inserted itself and decreased cost while increasing quality?
Well they inserted themselves into the home loan business...
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:35   #340
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
No. I can't. You folks are taking away my HSA. Why are you doing that?
Hey ... I'd be all for making all health care expenses tax deductible. Fine by me. Would that make you happy?

But seriously you are hinging your argument on an HSA (created by the way under GWB as part of the largest, unfunded, entitlement program this country has ever seen ... Medicare Part D)? An account in which you can deposit 2500 (or ~5000 family) pre-tax per year. I'm glad you reduced your taxable income by 5000 bucks ... that is a whopper of an argument and savings! Or maybe you like it because it allows you to effectively bonus up your retirement income if you don't use the money on health care ... a "under the radar" IRA if you will. If it is the latter, to frickin' bad. Use an IRA or another investment vehicle that was meant for that purpose.

So .. If it is the former and you do use it (or most of it) on health care expenses ... well .. congratulations, you saved about 100 bucks last year.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:35   #341
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Well they inserted themselves into the home loan business...
They inserted themselves into healthcare and costs have gone through the stratosphere (Medicare).

They did it in higher education and costs have gone through the stratosphere.



I know I'm missing a few here.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:44   #342
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
Hey ... I'd be all for making all health care expenses tax deductible. Fine by me. Would that make you happy?
You'd phase me out, like every other deduction.

Quote:
But seriously you are hinging your argument on an HSA (created by the way under GWB as part of the largest, unfunded, entitlement program this country has ever seen ... Medicare Part D)?
Medicare D was terrible. Not the fact that it was unfunded, just the fact that Medicare was expanded.

The HSA was a by product to lower costs. It has nothing to do with Medicare.

Quote:
An account in which you can deposit 2500 (or ~5000 family) pre-tax per year. I'm glad you reduced your taxable income by 5000 bucks ... that is a whopper of an argument and savings!
It allows me to buy insurance with a lower annual premium. But what does it matter? Its my insurance plan and you lied when you said I could keep it.

As for the tax savings, what business is it of yours ? My taxes run in the 6 figures. Don't you think you could let me keep this $2500 or so in tax savings?

Ooops! No? Is that yet another tax increase you slipped under the radar?

Quote:
Or maybe you like it because it allows you to effectively bonus up your retirement income if you don't use the money on health care ... a "under the radar" IRA if you will. If it is the latter, to frickin' bad. Use an IRA or another investment vehicle that was meant for that purpose.
Too frickin bad? You people really despise people taking care of their own retirement don't you? It's my money in that account. Not yours.

Quote:
So .. If it is the former and you do use it (or most of it) on health care expenses ... well .. congratulations, you saved about 100 bucks last year.
Actually, it was several thousand dollars. More stealth tax increases.

But again, what does it matter? You said I could keep my plan, now you tell me "too frickin bad".

Which is it?

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 10-11-2012 at 20:50..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:44   #343
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
So don't treat him.
It is not an option. You darn well know it. It wasn't pre-Ocare, it won't be with O-Care, it wouldn't be in without O-Care (if repealed). So why keep harping on an irrelevant point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I know its hard for socialists, but tell the truth. 22 year old kids getting hit by busses and not paying their bill isn't the problem, is it? The fact is, 22 year olds don't consume healthcare. Old people do. Obamacare is designed to force the 22 year old into the system to pay for healthcare he won't be using, so you can get your hands on his money.
No and Yes.

No ... It DOES happen. People got sick or injured ALL THE TIME and did not have insurance. Seriously? It might have been the 22 year old. It might instead have been the 45 year old diabetic without insurance because of pre-existing. Same difference.

Yes .. you are exactly right that it forces people to get insurance because they CAN'T PLAN illness or injury. Yes ... you are right the statistically, younger folks consume less health care. Yes ... you are right that older people consume more. Yes ... that is the exact point of the mandate. Yes ... gambling and buying insurance only when you need it doesn't work and the mandate is PRECISELY (as you wrote) is intended to/designed "to force the 22 year old into the system to pay for healthcare" he WILL be using AND to mitigate the costs incurred by insurance companies to cover their more expensive customers ( on average older).
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:47   #344
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
What if he just chooses to pay the fine instead of buying insurance?
I've already explained the concept to you. It is a macro-economic effect of motivating that not to happen (i.e.,. to pay the fine). You aren't winning by being purposely obtuse.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:50   #345
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Hey doug - how do you provide more healthcare to more people and do it for less money?
Another strawman. You aren't providing more healthcare. People are already getting it (before Obamacare). There will be no net increase in people receiving care, only a change in the manner (i.e., less costly) in which they receive it.

Again ... purposefully obtuse arguments don't make you look too sharp.

Neither does mucking up and clogging the thread by making one-liner posts to be cute.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:50   #346
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Hey doug - healthcare is a limited resource. What happens when you give it to everyone?
See response (above) to your other one-liner post above that.

Last edited by douggmc; 10-11-2012 at 21:07..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:51   #347
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
I've already explained the concept to you. It is a macro-economic effect of motivating that not to happen (i.e.,. to pay the fine). You aren't winning by being purposely obtuse.
So a $600 fine will cover the medical expenses of getting hit by a bus?
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:52   #348
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Hey doug - can you provide a single other area where the government has inserted itself and decreased cost while increasing quality?
Strawman (alot this evening). Your argument (if it were valid) is debatable anyway. Yes ... there are plenty of bureaucratic, costly government programs.

This says nothing of the fact that Obamacare being portrayed as a huge government takeover of health care is nonsense. It is, at its core, basically one new regulation on a private industry ("the mandate") which also is in turn a humongous boon to the same private industry (do you remember them opposing Obamacare) in terms if a vast increase of paying customers.

Last edited by douggmc; 10-11-2012 at 20:55..
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:56   #349
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by douggmc View Post
It is not an option. You darn well know it. It wasn't pre-Ocare, it won't be with O-Care, it wouldn't be in without O-Care (if repealed). So why keep harping on an irrelevant point?
You're revamping the healthcare system. Make it an option.

Allowing anyone to show up at the hospital and receive services regardless of ability to pay is a big part of the problem. Stop it.

Quote:
No and Yes.

No ... It DOES happen. People got sick or injured ALL THE TIME and did not have insurance. Seriously? It might have been the 22 year old. It might instead have been the 45 year old diabetic without insurance because of pre-existing. Same difference.

Yes .. you are exactly right that it forces people to get insurance because they CAN'T PLAN illness or injury. Yes ... you are right the statistically, younger folks consume less health care. Yes ... you are right that older people consume more. Yes ... that is the exact point of the mandate. Yes ... gambling and buying insurance only when you need it doesn't work and the mandate is PRECISELY (as you wrote) is intended to/designed "to force the 22 year old into the system to pay for healthcare" he WILL be using AND to mitigate the costs incurred by insurance companies to cover their more expensive customers ( on average older).
He will not be using it. Ask an actuary. They're really sharp folks. It is one of the most difficult professional licensure examinations out there.

You're taxing young people. How many 22 year olds are "upper class"? They aren't. They're lower and middle class.

Oops! Not a tax on the lower and middle class? Say it ain't so!

If Obamacare is designed to lower costs, why the need for all this new money?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 20:57   #350
douggmc
Senior Member
 
douggmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Well they inserted themselves into the home loan business...
Right ... and then "uninserted" themselves via repeal of Glass Steagall ... thereby allowing banks to over leverage themselves with junk and risky paper ... almost resulting in total destruction of our country.
douggmc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:08.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,129
341 Members
788 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42