mnealtx 0 #126 June 30, 2012 Quote (Just a reminder for the easily bamboozled) I'm unsurprised that you consider a comedian a valid news source.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #127 June 30, 2012 QuoteQuote (Just a reminder for the easily bamboozled) I'm unsurprised that you consider a comedian a valid news source. Many a true word is spoken in jest. What EXACTLY did he say that is untrue? www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #128 June 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote (Just a reminder for the easily bamboozled) I'm unsurprised that you consider a comedian a valid news source. Many a true word is spoken in jest. What EXACTLY did he say that is untrue? www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/ Politifact sure can't, if they're saying the two programs are the same. QuoteBut Obamacare owes as much, if not more, to Patrick’s implementation of the 2006 law, than it does to Romney’s original design. According to a Boston Herald report from April 2006, “Democrats privately and publicly grumbled over the headline treatment being lavished on Romney by the national press for a bill they say is more of the state Legislature’s making than the governor’s.” Romney vetoed the employer mandate; Democrats in Boston and Washington imposed one. Romney sought to require individuals to purchase inexpensive catastrophic insurance; Democrats in Boston and Washington forced individuals to buy costly, comprehensive plans. Romney sought a diverse market of insurance plans for small businesses; Democrats in Boston and Washington restricted insurance choices to three generous tiers. Looks like there's plenty of difference between Romneycare and ObamaTAX.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #129 June 30, 2012 QuoteThe reason we pay twice what other countries pay is lawyers, lawsuits, threats of lawsuits, and the courts. Think about it. There are more students in law school right now in the USA than there are lawyers. this is a line in the 1985 St Elmo's Fire. So it's been out there for a long while. Is it true? And is it bad? There are more English majors than writers as well. If they were all practicing lawyers it seems like it should be worse. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2010/10/a_case_of_supply_v_demand.2.html QuoteThe number of people employed in legal services hit an all-time high of 1.196 million in June 2007. It currently stands at 1.103 million. That means the number of law jobs has dwindled by about 7.8 percent. In comparison, the total number of jobs has fallen about 5.4 percent over the same period. At the same time, the law schools—the supply side of the equation—have not stopped growing. Law schools awarded 43,588 J.D.s last year, up 11.5 percent since 2000, though there was technically negative demand for lawyers So there is a supply v demand problem, but at a rate of 44k JD's per year, that's only 132k full time 3 year law students. Maybe double it for the part time, or night school types that take long. Still seems well short. And stands to reason - you couldn't have the potential lawyer population doubling every 3 years, or if it happened once (like web designers in the initial web boom), then you'd have more lawyers than students. The math around this clearly shows the statement cannot be true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #130 July 1, 2012 Quote The math around this clearly shows the statement cannot be true. It could be, if the new grads couldn't find jobs in the field. Quite a few cannot. There are probably more "models" in school than are working in the industry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #131 July 1, 2012 Quote Looks like there's plenty of difference between Romneycare and ObamaTAX. Ha ha, pull the other one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #132 July 1, 2012 QuoteQuote The math around this clearly shows the statement cannot be true. It could be, if the new grads couldn't find jobs in the field. Quite a few cannot. Oh, that problem exists, but the statement still cannot be true. Lawyer is someone with a JD who passed the bar, working or not. And you can't have that population doubling every 3 years, unless they go Logan's Run on the existing ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #133 July 3, 2012 QuoteAs a country we can't afford it. As an individual I am tired of my tax money being spent on people who don't contribute to society. It's unconstitutional for the federal government to require it's citizens to purchase something. Obamacare does not address the core problem with health care...affordability. That's just what came off the top of my head. I see the requirement to purchase HC as similar to the requirement to go to school. Sure, a bit different cuz most people go to school in their district, out of the pool of taxes paid by everyone; whereas HC offers the freedom to pretty much see the doc of choice and is paid out of pocket versus taxes. But the bottom line is that everybody is required to go to school because it benefits the public good. HC is the same way - a basic benefit set that increases public health can be very affordable and is definitely in the public interest. The other thing is if we want guarantee issue (how can everybody not be entitled to a basic benefit set?) than mandatory enrollment has to go along with that. How could anybody not want at least a basic benefit set? Cost of course is key, and the biggest factor there is supply of docs. If any politician ever gets the kahunas to take on te AMA and loosen that stranglehold you will finally see downward price pressure on cost of care. Very simple stuff really - supply and demand." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #134 July 3, 2012 so what would be the home schooling equivalent here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #135 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote As a country we can't afford it. As an individual I am tired of my tax money being spent on people who don't contribute to society. It's unconstitutional for the federal government to require it's citizens to purchase something. Obamacare does not address the core problem with health care...affordability. That's just what came off the top of my head. I see the requirement to purchase HC as similar to the requirement to go to school. Sure, a bit different cuz most people go to school in their district, out of the pool of taxes paid by everyone; whereas HC offers the freedom to pretty much see the doc of choice and is paid out of pocket versus taxes. But the bottom line is that everybody is required to go to school because it benefits the public good. HC is the same way - a basic benefit set that increases public health can be very affordable and is definitely in the public interest. The other thing is if we want guarantee issue (how can everybody not be entitled to a basic benefit set?) than mandatory enrollment has to go along with that. How could anybody not want at least a basic benefit set? Cost of course is key, and the biggest factor there is supply of docs. If any politician ever gets the kahunas to take on te AMA and loosen that stranglehold you will finally see downward price pressure on cost of care. Very simple stuff really - supply and demand. Schools are only required for children. Health insurance is a basic benefit set? If truly so, it should be provided to everyone for free. No one should have to pay for it, including the middle class and the rich. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #136 July 3, 2012 >Schools are only required for children. And healthcare plan enrollment will only be required for adults! (before that they're automatically on their parent's policies.) So it all works out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #137 July 3, 2012 Quote>Schools are only required for children. And healthcare plan enrollment will only be required for adults! (before that they're automatically on their parent's policies.) So it all works out. Bill, you obviously aren't thinking of the children...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #138 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote >Schools are only required for children. And healthcare plan enrollment will only be required for adults! (before that they're automatically on their parent's policies.) So it all works out. Bill, you obviously aren't thinking of the children... Or not realizing the school comparison means treating adults like children. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #139 July 3, 2012 Quote so what would be the home schooling equivalent here? You pay taxes to support public schools whether or not you homeschool your kids. It's a "penalty".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #140 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote so what would be the home schooling equivalent here? You pay taxes to support public schools whether or not you homeschool your kids. It's a "penalty". Unless that location uses vouchers. In those cases those with no children are the only ones "penalized." Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #141 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote so what would be the home schooling equivalent here? You pay taxes to support public schools whether or not you homeschool your kids. It's a "penalty". Unless that location uses vouchers. In those cases those with no children are the only ones "penalized." And look what a mess voucher programs produce: ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #142 July 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote so what would be the home schooling equivalent here? You pay taxes to support public schools whether or not you homeschool your kids. It's a "penalty". Unless that location uses vouchers. In those cases those with no children are the only ones "penalized." And look what a mess voucher programs produce: Totally agree. Fixing the core issues instead of just handing money over to private entities is always the better idea. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #143 July 5, 2012 QuoteHonestly, whats the problem with a nation taking care of its own people instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations? I don't get it. All the ACA really does is force you to buy from those companies.... That is one of my problems with it. Another problem is, like others have said, that it works on access, but not the cost. Finally, I don't like the idea that the govt can make an individual buy a product from a private company or have to pay a tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #144 July 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteHonestly, whats the problem with a nation taking care of its own people instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations? I don't get it. All the ACA really does is force you to buy from those companies.... That is one of my problems with it. Another problem is, like others have said, that it works on access, but not the cost. Finally, I don't like the idea that the govt can make an individual buy a product from a private company or have to pay a tax. Like energy efficient air conditioners or windows. Got it!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #145 July 8, 2012 Message from Maine Governor Paul LePage. http://www.dirigoblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Government-run-Health-Care-.mp3Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #146 July 9, 2012 QuoteLike energy efficient air conditioners or windows. Got it! The govt does not MAKE you buy those things. It does not send the IRS after you if you do not upgrade. Stop being intentionally obtuse. Unless you can show me where the Govt is going to MAKE you upgrade your AC unit or send the IRS after you.... Your argument is total bullshit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #147 July 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteLike energy efficient air conditioners or windows. Got it! The govt does not MAKE you buy those things. It does not send the IRS after you if you do not upgrade. Stop being intentionally obtuse. Unless you can show me where the Govt is going to MAKE you upgrade your AC unit or send the IRS after you.... Your argument is total bullshit. The govt won't MAKE you buy health insurance. There's just a negative tax consequence if you don't. Just like with energy efficient air conditioners. Your position is totally ignorant.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #148 July 9, 2012 QuoteThe govt won't MAKE you buy health insurance. There's just a negative tax consequence if you don't. Just like with energy efficient air conditioners. Your argument is silly. If you don't buy a new AC you do not get a break. If you do not buy HC, you get a bill. QuoteYour position is totally ignorant. That the best you can do? Didn't we already discuss how attacking the person is the lowest form of debate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #149 July 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe govt won't MAKE you buy health insurance. There's just a negative tax consequence if you don't. Just like with energy efficient air conditioners. Your argument is silly. If you don't buy a new AC you do not get a break. If you do not buy HC, you get a bill. QuoteYour position is totally ignorant. That the best you can do? Didn't we already discuss how attacking the person is the lowest form of debate? No, I just made an observation on the position that you are taking. On the bottom line, there is a negative tax consequence for not buying an energy efficient air conditioner, and there will be a negative tax consequence for not buying health insurance. The ONLY difference is the way the negative consequence is worded.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #150 July 9, 2012 As stated in the other thread: Incentives are basically coupons. They offer discounts to encourage "business" with the thinking that the increases in "sales" will offset the loss of not selling at "retail." In essence not a large difference between: Save $500 off this $1500 TV And Buy a hybrid car for $30k and get a $3k deduction. Or mortgage, Or high efficiency AC. This healthcare tax is an additional tax. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
