• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Thanks, Obama.

Turd Ferguson said:
No. It would still be the minority of us who pay those taxes so people like the one described in the OP can take advantage of the system. Do you really think she pays taxes? The government's involvement only means those of us already carrying the load will pay even more to compensate for the government inefficiency.



Yes. Win for the freeloaders who honestly think it is their "right" to be provided with things by other more productive people.
Click to expand...

Not only do we pay it in Medicaid costs, but about 10% of our insurance premiums are for those who don't have insurance.

You do realize that the Obamacare mandate will help fix some of this, don't you?
 
WakeandBake said:
^ if there was no medicaid would she still get treatment in the ER?

Yes, she would.

We don't let people die on the sidewalk outside the hospital.

Who would pay for that, ultimately?

put your thinking cap on and get back to me
Click to expand...

Were you referring to my post? If so you should read more closely. Ph was making some sort of single-payer sarcastic comment. Medicaid has existed for a while, and is not a single-payer system. So your response doesn't make sense. I also didn't suggest that we let her die on the sidewalk. But while you are putting words in my mouth, start a charity and take care of her. That is what that is...charity. Forced charity on taxpayers that is somehow interpreted as an entitlement for poor people.
 
RJKarl said:
Not only do we pay it in Medicaid costs, but about 10% of our insurance premiums are for those who don't have insurance.

You do realize that the Obamacare mandate will help fix some of this, don't you?
Click to expand...

Ha. It will cost more and be no better. It does, however, have the benefit of getting the government even more involved in our lives.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
Were you referring to my post? If so you should read more closely. Ph was making some sort of single-payer sarcastic comment. Medicaid has existed for a while, and is not a single-payer system. So your response doesn't make sense. I also didn't suggest that we let her die on the sidewalk. But while you are putting words in my mouth, start a charity and take care of her. That is what that is...charity. Forced charity on taxpayers that is somehow interpreted as an entitlement for poor people.
Click to expand...

we got a live one here
 
Turd Ferguson said:
Ha. It will cost more and be no better. It does, however, have the benefit of getting the government even more involved in our lives.
Click to expand...

Actually false on both concepts. Every objective study that has been done shows premium will be slowed because of the mandate.

Further if you have insurance, the government won't be in your life anymore than it is today. For those who don't they make a choice.

But it's good to see that you are so consistently wrong.
 
WakeandBake said:
we got a live one here
Click to expand...

Nah, just killing time. First time in the tunnels. Bout what I expected from what I pick up on the sports board. Carry on brainstorming up ways to spend my money in new and exciting ways.
 
RJKarl said:
Actually false on both concepts. Every objective study that has been done shows premium will be slowed because of the mandate.

Further if you have insurance, the government won't be in your life anymore than it is today. For those who don't they make a choice.

But it's good to see that you are so consistently wrong.
Click to expand...

I love the "premium increases have slowed" argument. It's like the "million jobs saved" one I hear so much. Oh, and the "everybody agrees" one is good, too.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
Nah, just killing time. First time in the tunnels. Bout what I expected from what I pick up on the sports board. Carry on brainstorming up ways to spend my money in new and exciting ways.
Click to expand...

well kudos for coming out guns a blazin'.
 
WakeandBake said:
well kudos for coming out guns a blazin'.
Click to expand...

That's how I troll, bitches! While we're talking guns...

Just joking. I'll just admit to being in the minority politically on this board and stick to the sports board. Both our lives will be more enjoyable that way.

Just an observation, though. I find RJ to be as insightful in the Tunnels as I do on the Sports board.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
I love the "premium increases have slowed" argument. It's like the "million jobs saved" one I hear so much. Oh, and the "everybody agrees" one is good, too.
Click to expand...

The only possible way to "cut" insurance premiums is to go to full single payer.

Maintaining the status quo or implementing the insane GOP plan would let rates continue to go up the way they are.
 
RJKarl said:
The only possible way to "cut" insurance premiums is to go to full single payer.

Maintaining the status quo or implementing the insane GOP plan would let rates continue to go up the way they are.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating the GOP plan for anything. I'm also not for "cutting" premiums. The market will decide. I am for paying for your own shit and letting charitable people (much like yourself, I can only assume, because of your eagerness to share my money with "people who need it") help those in need. I'm all for helping people. I contribute to charitable causes. I actually enjoy helping other people. I am not for a government system that creates entitlements for and then redistributes the funds to other people. We will just have to agree to disagree here.

WakeandBake said:
Your avatar is funny
Click to expand...

See, we kept the dialogue open and got to a point we can agree on! Only in 'Murica, my friend.
 
Giving to charity is just a proxy for taxes going to charitable purposes.
 
If you live in a modern, industrialized nation, there will be taxes. By definition those monies will be redistributed. There's no way around it.

It is impossible to live in a modern nation without redistribution of funds. Anyone who things it can be done doesn't understand how the world works.
 
PhDeac said:
Giving to charity is just a proxy for taxes going to charitable purposes.
Click to expand...

No, I have a choice in who or what cause I give charity to. Taxes are forced. Another major difference is the government wastes tons of money through inefficiencies. Not to mention the corruption. And before you point out that plenty of charities are corrupt, I will point out that I can choose not to give to charities that are found to be corrupt. I can not choose to withhold my taxes.
 
RJKarl said:
If you live in a modern, industrialized nation, there will be taxes. By definition those monies will be redistributed. There's no way around it.

It is impossible to live in a modern welfare nation (FIFY)without redistribution of funds. Anyone who things it can be done doesn't understand how the world works.
Click to expand...

Actually, there would be taxes even if I lived in a non-modern, non-industrial nation. And no, taxes are not by definition redistributive. And yes, there are plenty of ways around it, they are just not ways you agree with.

And then your "anyone who knows anything" statement again.
 
Of course they have to be "redistributive". Any government take money from one person and spends it with another. That's the definition of of redistribution.
 
RJKarl said:
Of course they have to be "redistributive". Any government take money from one person and spends it with another. That's the definition of of redistribution.
Click to expand...

This is what you are focusing on? When the government collects taxes and then uses the money to run itself or to fund public works projects, it is not distributive. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is not the definition of a tax. That is the definition of a redistributive tax. There are plenty of tax programs that are not redistributive. It is interesting to note, however, that redistributing wealth is so closely linked to government in your eyes this is all you are seeing.
 
jhmd2000 said:
First, do you not view this subject matter as a problem?

Second, how could this be done in jest? What exactly is funny about the fact that this is her solution in life? That you guys have written her off as a productive person, and stop expecting that she better her life? That our system is designed in a way to give up on her and render her a dependent ward, incapable of contributing on her own? The problem with the culture of dependency is that it's inhumane to its victim. Repeat: You are not actually helping this person. This isn't about me, I'm doing just fine, it's that your system of keeping people dependent in exchange for their votes hurts them, even if it helps you on election day. Would you prefer that we all just ignore this problem, as you all seem content to do? She should settle for this existence? That's the plan?
Click to expand...

I thought it was in jest because anyone with a minimum amount of exposure to social media or message boards that are a rung or two down in sophistication/education level frequently encounter spam like this. Can you do us all a favor and not copy paste the next email you receive about the time Einstein was a student and successfully proved to this atheist teacher the existence of God or some letter attributed to US servicemen angry at Obama for snatching their guns!

You continue to be a racist asshole by nonsense like this to push your mindset that poor people and minorities are not voting Republican because they are too stupid.
 
I don't have a problem with individual states mandating health care, I do have a problem with the federal government doing so. I don't really view this aspect as anything beyond a federalist issue. I liked Romney's Massachusetts plan, but disagree with the health car decision that the insurance mandate was a tax over a penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top