User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:08:45 AM EDT
[#1]
stopping another massive entitlement that will probably make the others look like childsplay in wealth destruction is worth talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:08:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Edited-joker581 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:11:14 AM EDT
[#3]
OP, I would agree that the constant butt-hurt over ZeroTax does get old and it's pretty much pissing into the wind.
That said a double whammy of ZeroTax and the lackluster economy should have put folks into attack mode by now. I'd suggest folks concentrate on getting shed of Zero for starters and then go from there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:12:17 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: I'm beyond the point where I worry about the abuse of authority. The abuse is clear and present. Anymore I am just preparing for the day when the abuse presents a direct threat to me and my family. Our forefathers weep undoubtedly. Our forefathers are spinning in their graves to the point that if you hooked them to a gererator for 10 minutes, you could power the country for 100 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:14:58 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Obama-Care is the absolute worst law ever enacted in the USA! If Obama-Care is not repealed it will be the turning point in the downfall of the USA as we know it. All private health insurance company's will go out of business within 5 years with Obama-Care. That one act will ultimately cost more than all other federal spending combined within 5 years! I for one won't miss the craptastic customer service provided by the small insurance companies. If they can't figure out how to work within the new insurance welfare that the ACA sets up, screw 'em. They will get free penetration into a group they did not have access to before, the currently uninsured. Edited-joker581 Or better yet the VA. ErikO was raving about the pre existing condition shit. My experience with the VA resulted in them losing all the important shit in my navy medical record with included serious back njuries sustained during active duty. Now the same dumb fucks running the VA are going to be running health care for all of the country. You want that kind of heath care ErikO? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:16:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
..................... Exactly. As for small business owners, well health insurance shouldn't be tied to employment anyway, but that's a larger argument. Oh –– and there's more than just drug companies over charging, the whole system is fucked with ridiculous money grubbing bullshit from insurance companies that are nothing but stock fund managers to health care corporations that are nothing but stock fund managers, etc. etc. The system is hardly free market based and anyone who says otherwise is talking out of the business end of a crack pipe.  Now some of this I can agree with. You make some good points. But, PLEASE, drop your white vs. non-white arguments. I'm not making a white vs. non-white argument at all. Your attempt to pervert what I said is both tedious and telling (telling in that you have no argument here). I simply responded to a poster who stated that we would have a dearth of doctors in the future do to Obamacare. What he based this faux fact on I don't know, but the only way to answer that charge was to point out that we would have less white doctors but more doctors of color. It's not a racial argument, it's simply a fact. You're the one who is trying to make this discussion something it's not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:19:22 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Maximum out of pocket is not a bad thing either. ... If you can point out that aspect of the law, I'd love to see it. AFAIK, the "lifetime limit" is removed but nothing about rates, including max OOP, not going up. My insurance, stable for a few years, went up in 2010,11, &12. My max out-of-pocket went from "well that's gonna leave a mark" to "I'm gonna be bent over and fucked" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:22:44 AM EDT
[#8]
Med schools don't turn out a lot of doctors. Unless that number changes, we will see a longer wait for care as more people move Into the preventative stages of care. ER wait times may drop. The race or ethnicity of doctors has no bearing on any of this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:24:39 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
The only problem I guess would be with people who don't want to be seen by a doctor whose pigmentation isn't their chosen preference. Oh look, Martha! A Usual Suspect screaming racism! When your only tool is a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail.............. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:27:29 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..................... Exactly. As for small business owners, well health insurance shouldn't be tied to employment anyway, but that's a larger argument. Oh –– and there's more than just drug companies over charging, the whole system is fucked with ridiculous money grubbing bullshit from insurance companies that are nothing but stock fund managers to health care corporations that are nothing but stock fund managers, etc. etc. The system is hardly free market based and anyone who says otherwise is talking out of the business end of a crack pipe. Now some of this I can agree with. You make some good points. But, PLEASE, drop your white vs. non-white arguments. I'm not making a white vs. non-white argument at all. Your attempt to pervert what I said is both tedious and telling (telling in that you have no argument here). I simply responded to a poster who stated that we would have a dearth of doctors in the future do to Obamacare. What he based this faux fact on I don't know, but the only way to answer that charge was to point out that we would have less white doctors but more doctors of color. It's not a racial argument, it's simply a fact. You're the one who is trying to make this discussion something it's not. Ok yes we get it you pointed out that there will be a dearth of doctors but you did bring race into play on that. You could have said there is a dearth of doctors that will gladly work under the current Obamacare system, why mention they are minority, so you did in fact bring race into this when no one here even gives a shit about what color their doctor is. I don't give a flying fuck if he is Indian or not, if he can fix whatever problems I am having then so be it. Stop trying to evade the fact that you turned something into a racial matter. Obviously more than one person took what you said the same way as others are, sorry but you can't always be right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:30:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
There's an issue bigger than unlimited federal power? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 8:34:13 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..................... Exactly. As for small business owners, well health insurance shouldn't be tied to employment anyway, but that's a larger argument. Oh –– and there's more than just drug companies over charging, the whole system is fucked with ridiculous money grubbing bullshit from insurance companies that are nothing but stock fund managers to health care corporations that are nothing but stock fund managers, etc. etc. The system is hardly free market based and anyone who says otherwise is talking out of the business end of a crack pipe. Now some of this I can agree with. You make some good points. But, PLEASE, drop your white vs. non-white arguments. I'm not making a white vs. non-white argument at all. Your attempt to pervert what I said is both tedious and telling (telling in that you have no argument here). I simply responded to a poster who stated that we would have a dearth of doctors in the future do to Obamacare. What he based this faux fact on I don't know, but the only way to answer that charge was to point out that we would have less white doctors but more doctors of color. It's not a racial argument, it's simply a fact. You're the one who is trying to make this discussion something it's not. There is a finite amount of doctors that can be produced every year, there is not an assembly line that can be switched on. A massive influx of new patients, a limited space for (med school, residency, etc) future doctors, and existing experienced doctors leaving the profession equals a shortage of doctors. You and you alone brought race into the equation. Nobody twisted your words around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 9:32:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Biggest tax increase ever. There's an additional 0.9% on every pay check just to start out with. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This bill will PROFOUNDLY change American life forever. Just wait and see. It's one of the cornerstones of the NWO socialist paradise they envision for us "little people" who really don't know what's best for us. Sorry, you can put your tinfoil on BUT this is a reality. Just because Alex Jones screams and rants about it doesn't mean it isn't real. It just means he screams and rants. Oh, I must add this. Remember Nancy Pelosi stating that "we need to hurry up and pass this bill, so we can see what's in it." The statement speaks for itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 10:07:47 AM EDT
[#14]
The average family making $75,000 per year will be just fine under Obamacare.
If I were a typical dermatologist making $250,000 per year, I might be a bit worried –– my income may drop a bit. Someone please correct me with some facts and figures here... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 10:16:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
The average family making $75,000 per year will be just fine under Obamacare. If I were a typical dermatologist making $250,000 per year, I might be a bit worried –– my income may drop a bit. Someone please correct me with some facts and figures here... Everyone has to buy health insurance. Rates will go up. Rates are not based on income. The poor get their health care via welfare, the wealthy either self-insure or can afford the rates. This is a huge tax increase on the middle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 10:23:09 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
The average family making $75,000 per year will be just fine under Obamacare. If I were a typical dermatologist making $250,000 per year, I might be a bit worried –– my income may drop a bit. Someone please correct me with some facts and figures here... Did you miss the article over the weekend detailing how 75% of the multi-trillion dollars of spending in that bill are going to be covered by families making under $100k a year? Is it really that difficult to figure out how the costs will trickle down to the middle class? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 10:36:34 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
The average family making $75,000 per year will be just fine under Obamacare. If I were a typical dermatologist making $250,000 per year, I might be a bit worried –– my income may drop a bit. Someone please correct me with some facts and figures here... This is the fundamental problem with people who think like you. You want those who are more successful than others to pay more for the same services. America is supposed to be about giving people equal opportunity, not equal results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 10:40:41 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The average family making $75,000 per year will be just fine under Obamacare. If I were a typical dermatologist making $250,000 per year, I might be a bit worried –– my income may drop a bit. Someone please correct me with some facts and figures here... Everyone has to buy health insurance. Rates will go up. Rates are not based on income. The poor get their health care via welfare, the wealthy either self-insure or can afford the rates. This is a huge tax increase on the middle. Here are responses to the first three. 1. Everyone has to buy health insurance. Wrong. Just claim that you have a hardship, it's against your religion, or various other excuses and you don't have to buy health insurance. 2. Rates will go up. Why do you think that rates will increase? Please feel free to provide a few facts. 3. Rates are not based on income. Wrong. Rates for lower incomes are subsidized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 10:46:11 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The average family making $75,000 per year will be just fine under Obamacare. If I were a typical dermatologist making $250,000 per year, I might be a bit worried –– my income may drop a bit. Someone please correct me with some facts and figures here... This is the fundamental problem with people who think like you. You want those who are more successful than others to pay more for the same services. America is supposed to be about giving people equal opportunity, not equal results. Why don't you post a few facts, rather than criticize my thinking. I don't like Obama or Obamacare. But most of the stuff that people are posting here is just plain incorrect!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 11:01:23 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Here are responses to the first three. 1. Everyone has to buy health insurance. Wrong. Just claim that you have a hardship, it's against your religion, or various other excuses and you don't have to buy health insurance. 2. Rates will go up. Why do you think that rates will increase? Please feel free to provide a few facts. 3. Rates are not based on income. Wrong. Rates for lower incomes are subsidized. Here you go Saul... No free lunch... Gruber’s model focuses on six specific aspects of the law: "The requirement that all insurance plans cover “certain essential benefits;” The mandate that all plans meet a “minimum actuarial value” of 60 percent (i.e., that beneficiaries bear out-of-pocket responsibility for a maximum of 40 percent of their benefit costs); The requirement that insurers spend 80 percent of individual-market premium costs on health expenses (medical loss ratio); The law’s high-risk pools being folded into the exchanges; Competitive efficiencies brought about by the exchanges; and Requirements that insurers charge similar rates to the young and the old (community rating)." Just a beginning... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 11:02:11 AM EDT
[#21]
I
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The average family making $75,000 per year will be just fine under Obamacare. If I were a typical dermatologist making $250,000 per year, I might be a bit worried –– my income may drop a bit. Someone please correct me with some facts and figures here... Everyone has to buy health insurance. Rates will go up. Rates are not based on income. The poor get their health care via welfare, the wealthy either self-insure or can afford the rates. This is a huge tax increase on the middle. Here are responses to the first three. 1. Everyone has to buy health insurance. Wrong. Just claim that you have a hardship, it's against your religion, or various other excuses and you don't have to buy health insurance. 2. Rates will go up. Why do you think that rates will increase? Please feel free to provide a few facts. 3. Rates are not based on income. Wrong. Rates for lower incomes are subsidized. Rates have to go up or insurance companies won't make money. Insurance is about risk. The insurance companies need way more healthy people than sick people if they plan to make a return on their investments. Companies cannot endure no lifetime caps or insuring pre-existing conditions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 11:48:57 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The average family making $75,000 per year will be just fine under Obamacare. If I were a typical dermatologist making $250,000 per year, I might be a bit worried –– my income may drop a bit. Someone please correct me with some facts and figures here... Everyone has to buy health insurance. Rates will go up. Rates are not based on income. The poor get their health care via welfare, the wealthy either self-insure or can afford the rates. This is a huge tax increase on the middle. Here are responses to the first three. 1. Everyone has to buy health insurance. Wrong. Just claim that you have a hardship, it's against your religion, or various other excuses and you don't have to buy health insurance. 2. Rates will go up. Why do you think that rates will increase? Please feel free to provide a few facts. 3. Rates are not based on income. Wrong. Rates for lower incomes are subsidized. Rates will not go up? No more lifetime caps, coverage for everything (I don't think I'll need birth controlpills), extending "kids" to 26, no pre-existing conditions, etc. It's impossible for rates to NOT increase dramatically. (Which mine have for the past three cycles. ) Rates ARE based on income? That's odd. Blue Cross forgot to ask me. My rate is the same if I made $10K or 10 mill/year. "Lower income" have been "subsidized" for decades. The HMO's offered to PA welfare cases cover everything and have zero deductible. This is a radical tax increase that will hit the middle class the hardest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 12:29:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The average family making $75,000 per year will be just fine under Obamacare. If I were a typical dermatologist making $250,000 per year, I might be a bit worried –– my income may drop a bit. Someone please correct me with some facts and figures here... This is the fundamental problem with people who think like you. You want those who are more successful than others to pay more for the same services. America is supposed to be about giving people equal opportunity, not equal results. Well said. Never forget that socialism reduces everybody to the lowest common denominator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2012 12:45:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here are responses to the first three. 1. Everyone has to buy health insurance. Wrong. Just claim that you have a hardship, it's against your religion, or various other excuses and you don't have to buy health insurance. 2. Rates will go up. Why do you think that rates will increase? Please feel free to provide a few facts. 3. Rates are not based on income. Wrong. Rates for lower incomes are subsidized. Here you go Saul... No free lunch... Gruber’s model focuses on six specific aspects of the law: "The requirement that all insurance plans cover “certain essential benefits;” The mandate that all plans meet a “minimum actuarial value” of 60 percent (i.e., that beneficiaries bear out-of-pocket responsibility for a maximum of 40 percent of their benefit costs); The requirement that insurers spend 80 percent of individual-market premium costs on health expenses (medical loss ratio); The law’s high-risk pools being folded into the exchanges; Competitive efficiencies brought about by the exchanges; and Requirements that insurers charge similar rates to the young and the old (community rating)." Just a beginning... The expert in your link says that insurance rates won't go up "a whole lot" under Obamacare. That's a lovely analysis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2012 9:38:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, having burnt myself out at a previous job fighting with AetnaAE over my diabetes NOT being a 'prior condition' I am pretty damned happy to not have to go through that ever again. Oh yeah, and potentially being able to take my kiddo off of my insurance will save me more money as well. Maximum out of pocket is not a bad thing either. Hasn't everyone gotten used to the level of control the government has over us due to the 'DO SOMETHING!' legislation called US PATRIOT Act? How is ACA more over-reaching than that craptastic infringement of our collective and individual civil liberties? Why hasn't any of our 'representatives' overturned that turd? Oh yeah, healthy poor folks is a horrible thing, I forgot. Hey, don't like it? You could always move to Canada or Costa Rica. Oh wait, they have universal healthcare in both places... Change your fucking avatar, idiot! Nope, Gadsen was as much a Classic Liberal as I am. Sorry, not a Hopey-Changy sort of liberal here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2012 9:57:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.......................... Guess I hit a little too close for comfort, eh? Listen sweetheart, the fact is that there won't be a dearth of doctors in this country in the future. They just won't be white doctors, which doesn't bother me but certainly bothers some people. If you take issue with this fact of reality then that says volumes about your psyche. How in the heck did you morph this into a white vs non-white medical profession argument!!?? 
There all sorts of non-white doctors who are worried about Obamacare. There are? Guess Hannity didn't get the memo. So far all I've seen are scripted anglo hand puppets, go figure. 
And this didn't become a racial thread, nice try though. The person I quoted made the erroneous statement that there will be a dearth of doctors in the future here in America. I countered with the fact that there will only be a dearth of white doctors, not doctors in general. The racial element is simply a fact of this point, period. If you, or others here, don't like it then perhaps that says something about your mindset.
Facts of reality –– how do they work blah blah blah. LOL! I wonder how many more ways you can imply everyone, but you, is a racist. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
