Ping: Someone who is caught up in AFCA
Kim
Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
--
Kim
www.thedarwinexception.wordpress.com
* I stand against stuff. I am also unhappy with things..*
Hieronymus Agricola
(in article <hd6qf4$e16$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
> Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
>
Shawn: It's a very bad thing. And you're all morons.
Most everybody else: It's a mixed bag.
art...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:09:06 -0800, Kim wrote
>
>
>
> > Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> > to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> > I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
> Shawn: It's a very bad thing. And you're all morons.
>
> Most everybody else: It's a mixed bag.
Me: It's a good thing and you are all geniuses! have 10,000 Opus
Points!
landotter
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:09:06 -0800, Kim wrote
>
>
>
> > Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> > to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> > I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
> Shawn: It's a very bad thing. And you're all morons.
>
> Most everybody else: It's a mixed bag.
Yeah--I'm particularly annoyed as how the Christholes held their
breath until the healthcare bill contained language restricting the
rights and benefits of women so as to align with their magical beliefs.
David Friedman
<14ddc40f-d601-43e4...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bad thing.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Greg Goss
>
>Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
>to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
>I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
The "house" side was going to pass anyways. It's the Senate that's
paralyzed.
I would be a supporter if I were American. The current system is a
disaster, and the Republican "proposal" would make it worse.
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
Boron Elgar
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
>to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
>I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
Bart Stupak needs flaying with a dull pen knife.
Boron
landotter
wrote:
> In article
> <14ddc40f-d601-43e4-ad64-fbb5962c4...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 11:30 am, Hieronymus Agricola <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:09:06 -0800, Kim wrote
> > > (in article <hd6qf4$e1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
>
> > > > Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> > > > to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> > > > I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
> > > Shawn: It's a very bad thing. And you're all morons.
>
> > > Most everybody else: It's a mixed bag.
>
> > Me: It's a good thing and you are all geniuses! have 10,000 Opus
> > Points!
>
> Bad thing.
>
Bad thing if you're a facile libertarian fundamentalist, whose
economic fantasy world is rewarmed feudalism.
art...@yahoo.com
Cause then you get only 6783.2 Opus Points
David Friedman
<88e60393-2b4a-4b43...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
landotter <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bad thing if you're a facile libertarian fundamentalist, whose
> economic fantasy world is rewarmed feudalism.
I can't figure out if Landotter has actually read my one published
fantasy novel, or at least a review of it, or if this is his
interpretation of the anarchist institutions I described in _Machinery
of Freedom_, or if he is simply making it up out of whole cloth.
On the whole, the last alternative seems most likely.
landotter
/splort!
Slow Motion Apocalypse
wrote:
Depends on how much it's gonna cost me and if it will eventually lead
to any additional encroachments on my freedom (forced doctor visits
etc).
landotter
Forced doctor visits? Don't think they have those, even in Marxist
France.
Slow Motion Apocalypse
I remember watching CSPAN during the primary campaign and Clinton
saying "we are going to encourage people to visit the doctor more and
take better care of themselves," and John Edwards saying "No more
going years without seeing a doctor."
They both lost but the same mindset is at work here. "We know what's
best for you."
landotter
In which words did either of them say what you're claiming that
they're saying, other than the ones conjured up in your paranoid
imagination?
Slow Motion Apocalypse
Sorry you're having difficulty with reading comphrehension here. Find
an adult to explain it to you.
landotter
I'm simply asking you to show evidence for your paranoid claims. You
claim that encouraging people to take care of themselves is somehow a
draconian POV with no evidence in your favor. If you're an adult--
please--explain the hidden scary stuff to me.
Slow Motion Apocalypse
>
> - Show quoted text -
How else does a government "encourage" except thru laws, fines, taxes,
jail etc ?
landotter
So--not able to provide a cite? I get it. You're infected with
libertarian fundamentalism. Disengaging...
<click>
Bill Turlock
>
> Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
I was in the VA hosp cafeteria when it was announced on tv (I
don't have a TV)::smirk:: They have a big LCD screen in there,
always on CNN. Someone sent in a qurey, "why does it have to have
~2k pages?"
Simple--to obfuscate, certaily.
Slow Motion Apocalypse
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah dummy, I just want to be left alone. How difficult is that to
grasp?
Les Albert
It's 1990 pages because it is in small words (you need more of them to
explain something), big print (some of the pages only have 12 words on
them), and in large margins.
Le
Slow Motion Apocalypse
Have you read it?
Dover Beach
news:hd6qf4$e16$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need
> someone to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because
> there's no way I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
Here's what the Wall Street Journal says:
<q>
Parsing the House Health Bill
By JANET ADAMY
With the House health bill passed, Congress moves a step closer to
making the biggest changes to the health system in more than four
decades. Here's a look at what the bill would mean for various groups:
The uninsured: They're the biggest winners under the bill. Starting in
2013, it gives government subsidies to a chunk of low- and middle-income
Americans and expands Medicaid to cover a greater swath of the poor. At
the lowest income level, the subsidy would keep a family of four earning
just over $29,000 a year from paying more than 1.5% of their income on
insurance premiums. It reaches as far up as a family of four earning
about $88,000 a year, so they would pay no more than 12% of their income
toward insurance. Journal Community
* Vote: Do you agree with the House passing the bill to overhaul
health care?
Shopping for insurance would probably get easier since the bill creates
new exchanges designed to allow consumers who buy their own policies to
compare plans side by side. One of those plans would be a government-run
insurance plan, also known as the "public option."
Obtaining coverage would get easier because the bill prohibits insurance
companies from denying coverage to people over pre-existing health
conditions.
But for those who don't want insurance, there's a downside. Once these
changes take effect, people who choose to go uncovered would generally
have to pay a penalty equal to as much as 2.5% of their income.
The insured: Democrats tried to pack the bill with benefits for this
group, but the upside is less tangible and some of the wealthy would see
higher taxes. Most consumers would see their out-of-pocket medical costs
capped at $5,000 a year for individuals and $10,000 a year for families.
Insurance companies could no longer drop coverage when customers got
sick.
Some perks would go away. Employees with tax-free flexible spending
accounts could no longer use them to buy over-the-counter medicines, and
they couldn't put more than $2,500 a year in the accounts.
To finance the overhaul, individuals who earn more than $500,000 a year
or families making $1 million or more annually would pay a new 5.4% tax
on top of existing income taxes.
Seniors on Medicare: Over time, the bill would close a gap in
prescription drug coverage. Currently, Medicare participants are
responsible for paying drugs' full price in the "doughnut hole," which
kicks in when their drug spending exceeds $2,700 and goes up to $6,154
per year.
Medicare recipients would no longer have to pay out of pocket for
preventive care. Certain early retirees could tap into a new fund that
offsets the cost of high-cost health claims.
Since cuts to Medicare spending are one of the bill's biggest funding
sources, some benefits could evaporate from the program. Core benefits
aren't likely to be affected. Most likely to be eliminated are benefits
such as free fitness classes offered by private insurers who cover some
people on Medicare.
Large employers: The biggest changes don't directly affect most large
employers. The health-insurance plans they currently offer employees
would get grandfathered in to protect them from most new insurance
requirements. Those offering skimpy coverage, or none at all, would have
to pay a fine of up to 8% of their payroll.
Small Employers: The bill gives tax credits to firms with up to 25
workers and an average annual salary of $40,000. Employers with payroll
of less than $500,000 are exempt from paying a fine if they don't offer
insurance. And the bill gives them grants to create employee wellness
programs. But business owners with larger payrolls would face the fine
if they don't offer sufficient coverage.
Also, the tax on the wealthy could affect some small-business owners,
depending on the tax structure of their income. That is a big reason
small business groups have vocally opposed the bill.
Doctors: Primary-care doctors could see a strain from an influx of the
newly insured. While the bill carries new incentives to boost the supply
of these doctors, health professionals expect demand to outpace the
supply.
The bill's provisions on medical liability are far short of what most
doctors want. It creates new incentive payments to states that have
alternative medical liability laws aimed at cracking down on frivolous
malpractice lawsuits. Also, the bill doesn't address a looming sharp cut
in payments to doctors under Medicare.
Hospitals: With more Americans carrying insurance, they would no longer
give away so much uncompensated care. But the money the government gives
them to lessen that burden would also go down, and they fear the new
paying customers won't offset the cuts. They would also face new
penalties for readmitting Medicare patients in instances that the
government deems unnecessary.
Insurance companies: They're probably losers. The bill forces them to
abandon some of their most profitable practices without any guarantee
the tens of millions of new customers they'll likely get would make up
the difference.
Insurers couldn't charge an older customer more than twice as much as a
young one for insurance. They face caps on how much they spend on
administrative costs. Since some of the requirements take effect as soon
as next year, insurers say it would throw off contracts they're locking
in right now during employer open enrollment for policies.
But the most widely cited threat that insurers face under the bill --
the new public insurance plan -- may be overblown. The plan is only open
at first to individuals who can't get coverage at work and certain small
businesses, though some larger employers could eventually gain access.
Because the public plan would have to negotiate prices with doctors and
hospitals just as private insurers do, the Congressional Budget Office
has projected that the public plan generally wouldn't offer lower
premiums and wouldn't take away many customers from private insurers.
Pharmaceutical companies: The bill costs them far more than they had
hoped. Drug makers estimate they'll forgo $125 billion to $150 billion
over the next decade, largely in lower government payments for drugs,
under the changes. However, they would gain business because wider
insurance coverage means more people taking prescriptions.
To discourage undue influence over health-care providers, drug makers
and distributors would be required to report any payments they make
totaling more than $5 to doctors, pharmacies, hospitals and other care
providers.
</q>
--
Dover
David Friedman
Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Insurance companies: They're probably losers. The bill forces them to
> abandon some of their most profitable practices without any guarantee
> the tens of millions of new customers they'll likely get would make up
> the difference.
The problem with this analysis is that it takes it for granted that the
effects of the bill will be as advertised--something we can't know.
Insurance companies, for instance, have to take in at least as much
money as they pay out, or else they eventually go bankrupt. The bill, as
best I can judge by this summary, forces them in many cases to insure
people who they know are bad risks--the elderly, and those with
pre-existing conditions--at prices that don't fully take account of
that. And it probably (I haven't read it either) introduces additional
federal requirements on what they have to be willing to pay for.
If it turns out that total costs are much higher than the supporters of
the bill predict--something that seems to happen pretty routinely with
new programs--one of at least three things (or more than one) can
happen.
1. Insurance companies can go bankrupt, dumping everyone into a public
plan and leaving the U.S. with the de facto equivalent of the NHS; I
think that's unlikely but not impossible.
2. The government can find that it must provide a lot more money to pay
for insurance, and either raise the amount citizens have to pay directly
or raise additional taxes to pay for it or borrow. I have my doubts of
claims that all the extra tax money is going to come from the very
rich--that sounds more like a politically popular pretense than a likely
outcome. Given that the U.S. is already running a very high deficit,
additional borrowing raises significant risks (details available if
anyone is sufficiently curious).
3. The government can permit the insurance companies to skimp on
coverage, either by reducing the range of things covered--not
necessarily a bad thing, but that would be another argument--or the
amount and quality of care they are willing to pay for.
I could go into more detail on other problems likely to arise, in
particular from the effect of the program on the incentives of insurance
companies, but this is probably enough for the moment.
Paul L. Madarasz
You were lucky. At the mental health clinic at our VA, the TV had on
not only the worst (Fox), but the worst of the worst (Glenn Beck). No
one else seemed to notice the absurdity of airing anti-gov't
propaganda at the VA. Then again, you should hear the raving against
"socialism" by these folks waiting to use their VA benefits.
O brave new world, that hath such creatures in it.
--
Sorry I can't stop and talk now,
I'm in kind of a hurry anyhow,
but I'll send you a tape from California.
Les Albert
>> them), and in large margins. �
>Have you read it?
No. Too many words.
Les
Mark Steese
news:88e60393-2b4a-4b43...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:
Dang, landy, ya gotta start warning people. A knee jerk that violent
could hurt somebody.
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found
the banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
landotter
wrote:
> I could go into more detail on other problems likely to arise, in
> particular from the effect of the program on the incentives of insurance
> companies, but this is probably enough for the moment.
You mean you could wank further and muse upon predictions which
bolster your economic fundamentalism without providing real life
examples or evidence.
[international hand motion]
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
David Friedman wrote:
>
> In article
> <14ddc40f-d601-43e4...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> "art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 11:30 am, Hieronymus Agricola <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:09:06 -0800, Kim wrote
> > > (in article <hd6qf4$e1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> > > > to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> > > > I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
> > >
> > > Shawn: It's a very bad thing. And you're all morons.
> > >
> > > Most everybody else: It's a mixed bag.
> >
> > Me: It's a good thing and you are all geniuses! have 10,000 Opus
> > Points!
>
> Bad thing.
>
Never before has there been a tax in the US on people just to be
alive, the punishment being prison.
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
landotter wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 10:30 am, Hieronymus Agricola <use...@bauerstar.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:09:06 -0800, Kim wrote
> > (in article <hd6qf4$e1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> >
> >
> >
> > > Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> > > to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> > > I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
> >
> > Shawn: It's a very bad thing. And you're all morons.
> >
> > Most everybody else: It's a mixed bag.
>
> Yeah--I'm particularly annoyed as how the Christholes held their
> breath until the healthcare bill contained language restricting the
> rights and benefits of women so as to align with their magical beliefs.
>
There is no necessary connection between abortion and religious
beliefs.
Hieronymus Agricola
recirculation' ) wrote
(in article <4AF79498...@yahoo.co.uk>):
Forget it -- he's on a roll.
Opus the Penguin
> landotter <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bad thing if you're a facile libertarian fundamentalist, whose
>> economic fantasy world is rewarmed feudalism.
>
> Dang, landy, ya gotta start warning people. A knee jerk that
> violent could hurt somebody.
What sort of warning were you hoping for? You saw the "From" field.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Mac
wrote:
> Mark Steese (mark_ste...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Bad thing if you're a facile libertarian fundamentalist, whose
> >> economic fantasy world is rewarmed feudalism.
>
> > Dang, landy, ya gotta start warning people. A knee jerk that
> > violent could hurt somebody.
>
> What sort of warning were you hoping for? You saw the "From" field.
Coulda put a "squred" superscript after it.
Slow Motion Apocalypse
> "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net> wrote innews:hd6qf4$e16$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>
>
> > Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need
> > someone to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because
> > there's no way I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
> Here's what the Wall Street Journal says:
>
> <q>
>
> Parsing the House Health Bill
>
> By JANET ADAMY
>
> With the House health bill passed, Congress moves a step closer to
> making the biggest changes to the health system in more than four
> decades. Here's a look at what the bill would mean for various groups:
>
> The uninsured: They're the biggest winners under the bill. Starting in
> 2013, it gives government subsidies to a chunk of low- and middle-income
> Americans and expands Medicaid to cover a greater swath of the poor. At
> the lowest income level, the subsidy would keep a family of four earning
> just over $29,000 a year from paying more than 1.5% of their income on
> insurance premiums. It reaches as far up as a family of four earning
> about $88,000 a year, so they would pay no more than 12% of their income
> toward insurance. Journal Community
>
What about a single individual making less than $20,000 a year? And I
guess I won't have to do anything until 2013?
Kim
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:09:06 -0800, Kim wrote
>
>>
>> Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need
>> someone to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because
>> there's no way I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>>
>>
>
>
> Most everybody else: It's a mixed bag.
OK. I guess I can live with mixed bag. Although I would also insist that
Shawn NOT take advantage of this very bad thing and obtain any kind of
health insurance.
--
Kim
Les Albert
<slowmotion...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 12:56�pm, Dover Beach <moon.blanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net> wrote
>> > Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need
>> > someone to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because
>> > there's no way I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>> Here's what the Wall Street Journal says:
>> <q>
>> Parsing the House Health Bill
>> By JANET ADAMY
>> With the House health bill passed, Congress moves a step closer to
>> making the biggest changes to the health system in more than four
>> decades. Here's a look at what the bill would mean for various groups:
>> The uninsured: They're the biggest winners under the bill. Starting in
>> 2013, it gives government subsidies to a chunk of low- and middle-income
>> Americans and expands Medicaid to cover a greater swath of the poor. At
>> the lowest income level, the subsidy would keep a family of four earning
>> just over $29,000 a year from paying more than 1.5% of their income on
>> insurance premiums. It reaches as far up as a family of four earning
>> about $88,000 a year, so they would pay no more than 12% of their income
>> toward insurance. Journal Community
>What about a single individual making less than $20,000 a year?
Work harder to make more money.
Les
Slow Motion Apocalypse
>
> - Show quoted text -
I prefer frugal living and a short work week.
Kim
> "Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:hd6qf4$e16$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need
>> someone to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because
>> there's no way I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>>
>
> Here's what the Wall Street Journal says:
>
> <q>
>
> Parsing the House Health Bill
>
> By JANET ADAMY
>
> With the House health bill passed, Congress moves a step closer to
> making the biggest changes to the health system in more than four
> decades. Here's a look at what the bill would mean for various groups:
>
> The uninsured: They're the biggest winners under the bill. Starting in
> 2013, it gives government subsidies to a chunk of low- and
> middle-income Americans and expands Medicaid to cover a greater swath
> of the poor.
OK - so nothing happens until 2013. Which is fine. I'll be dead by then,
most likely.
And what are "government subsidies"? Is that in the form of a rebate in your
tax return or just in lower premiums paid to begin with? Expand Medicaid
how? Raise the limits on eligibility? I don't get that part - if the
government is acknowledging that there are *poor* who don't have health
insurance and should be covered under Medicaid - why hasn't the limit been
raised before now? Wouldn't that just solve a bunch of these problems
without an entire "revamping of the health care industry".
>At the lowest income level, the subsidy would keep a
> family of four earning just over $29,000 a year from paying more than
> 1.5% of their income on insurance premiums.
1.5% of their income every month or total for a year? Because
that's.........$435.00. That's still quite a bit if you are talking monthly.
The uninsured who can't afford health care probably still can't afford over
$400 a month.
>
> But for those who don't want insurance, there's a downside. Once these
> changes take effect, people who choose to go uncovered would generally
> have to pay a penalty equal to as much as 2.5% of their income.
I don't get this, either. OK - so there's a 1% tax on not being insured.
Either pay 1.5% in insurance premiums, or 2.5% in penalties.
But how does the government know who has insurance and who doesn't? Are your
neighbors going to be encouraged to rat you out if you run around saying "I
don't have health insurance! WOO HOO!"
>
> The insured: Democrats tried to pack the bill with benefits for this
> group, but the upside is less tangible and some of the wealthy would
> see higher taxes. Most consumers would see their out-of-pocket
> medical costs capped at $5,000 a year for individuals and $10,000 a
> year for families.
I really like this. I just wonder if my Canadian drugs are going to count
towards my cap.
> Large employers: The biggest changes don't directly affect most large
> employers. The health-insurance plans they currently offer employees
> would get grandfathered in to protect them from most new insurance
> requirements. Those offering skimpy coverage, or none at all, would
> have to pay a fine of up to 8% of their payroll.
Which means more "temporary" and part-time workers at Wal Mart.
> Doctors: Primary-care doctors could see a strain from an influx of the
> newly insured. While the bill carries new incentives to boost the
> supply of these doctors, health professionals expect demand to
> outpace the supply.
>
> Hospitals: With more Americans carrying insurance, they would no
> longer give away so much uncompensated care. But the money the
> government gives them to lessen that burden would also go down, and
> they fear the new paying customers won't offset the cuts. They would
> also face new penalties for readmitting Medicare patients in
> instances that the government deems unnecessary.
Is this the death panel? How would the government know what is
"unnecessary". I think this is just shifting the "who needs care" question
from insurance executives to goverment workers.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Kim wrote:
>
> Hieronymus Agricola wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:09:06 -0800, Kim wrote
> > (in article <hd6qf4$e16$1...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> >
> >>
> >> Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need
> >> someone to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because
> >> there's no way I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Shawn: It's a very bad thing. And you're all morons.
> >
> > Most everybody else: It's a mixed bag.
>
> OK. I guess I can live with mixed bag. Although I would also insist that
> Shawn NOT take advantage of this very bad thing and obtain any kind of
> health insurance.
>
Given that it's five years in prison if he doesn't, what choice
does he have? The Democrats have essentially decided they have the
right to tax you to just be alive. This is utterly new in America,
as far as I can tell. Will there be a federal police force of
compliance running around kicking doors down and demanding you
provide them with proof of health insurance?
Joy Beeson
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
> there's no way
> I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
If it runs 1990 pages, it's a bad bill. No further information
needed.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Les Albert
>I prefer frugal living and a short work week.
Frugality is misery in disguise. - Publilius Syrus
Les
Slow Motion Apocalypse
wrote:
> Dover Beach wrote:
> > "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
You sound like a Sarah Palin sympathizer.
Joseph Nebus
>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:09:06 -0500, "Kim"
><darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> there's no way
>> I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>If it runs 1990 pages, it's a bad bill. No further information
>needed.
OK, I'll bite. What's the maximum possible number of pages that
a proposed law may have to have any chance of being good, then?
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slow Motion Apocalypse
I am perfectly happy not spending money on a bunch of shit I don't
want or need.
Neal Eckhardt
>
>Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
>to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
>I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
I have a little book in front of me with the Declaration of
Independence, and the Constitution of the Unitet States.
All of 42 pages that serves as the way a country should be run. 2000
pages for a health care bill.... Come on...
--
Neal
Never go to a plastic surgeon whose favorite artist is Picasso.
Slow Motion Apocalypse
wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:09:06 -0500, "Kim"
>
>
> >Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> >to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> >I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
> I have a little book in front of me with the Declaration of
> Independence, and the Constitution of the Unitet States.
>
> All of 42 pages that serves as the way a country should be run. 2000
> pages for a health care bill.... Come on...
>
And presumably most people who voted on it didn't read it.
Snidely
<slowmotionapocaly...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:06 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 1:01 pm, Slow Motion Apocalypse
>
> > <slowmotionapocaly...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 10:55 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 8, 12:49 pm, Slow Motion Apocalypse
>
> > > > <slowmotionapocaly...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 8, 10:44 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 8, 12:35 pm, Slow Motion Apocalypse
>
> > > > > > <slowmotionapocaly...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:09 am, "Kim" <darwinexceptiontakethis...@verizon.net>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> > > > > > > > to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> > > > > > > > I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
> > > > > > > > Kimwww.thedarwinexception.wordpress.com
> > > > > > > > * I stand against stuff. I am also unhappy with things..*
>
> > > > > > > to any additional encroachments on my freedom (forced doctor visits
> > > > > > > etc).
>
> > > > > > Forced doctor visits? Don't think they have those, even in Marxist
> > > > > > France.
>
> > > > > I remember watching CSPAN during the primary campaign and Clinton
> > > > > saying "we are going to encourage people to visit the doctor more and
> > > > > take better care of themselves," and John Edwards saying "No more
> > > > > going years without seeing a doctor."
>
> > > > > They both lost but the same mindset is at work here. "We know what's
> > > > > best for you."
>
> > > > In which words did either of them say what you're claiming that
> > > > they're saying, other than the ones conjured up in your paranoid
> > > > imagination?
>
> > > Sorry you're having difficulty with reading comphrehension here. Find
> > > an adult to explain it to you.
>
> > I'm simply asking you to show evidence for your paranoid claims. You
> > claim that encouraging people to take care of themselves is somehow a
> > draconian POV with no evidence in your favor. If you're an adult--
> > please--explain the hidden scary stuff to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> jail etc ?
Advertising (PSAs), sponsorship, reimbursement, tax *credits*, etc.
/dps
S. Checker
>
>>
> Given that it's five years in prison if he doesn't, what choice
> does he have? The Democrats have essentially decided they have the
> right to tax you to just be alive. This is utterly new in America,
> as far as I can tell. Will there be a federal police force of
> compliance running around kicking doors down and demanding you
> provide them with proof of health insurance?
From the cited Wall Street Journal article:
"people who choose to go uncovered would generally
have to pay a penalty equal to as much as 2.5% of their income."
So if all you do is just be alive, your income will be zero and your
tax will be zero. On the other hand, if you have an income, you will be
taxed. For some time here in this universe, we have had something
called an "income tax." This is an income tax. It is not quite as
surprising as you seem to think.
--
Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a
friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.
--Franklin P. Jones
Greg Johnson
<darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>I don't get this, either. OK - so there's a 1% tax on not being insured.
>Either pay 1.5% in insurance premiums, or 2.5% in penalties.
>
>But how does the government know who has insurance and who doesn't? Are your
>neighbors going to be encouraged to rat you out if you run around saying "I
>don't have health insurance! WOO HOO!"
The way the Australian government handles this issue is to require an
insurance policy number as part of your tax return. They then check
this with the insurance companies. If you don't have insurance, then
you get to pay extra tax. If it doesn't cover you for all of the year,
then you get to pay slightly less extra tax.
David Friedman
"Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
> OK. I guess I can live with mixed bag. Although I would also insist that
> Shawn NOT take advantage of this very bad thing and obtain any kind of
> health insurance.
Is that conditional on his not having to pay any additional taxes, in
one form or another, to the government? I don't think that's an option
under the present bill, since there is a penalty for not being insured.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
> Given that it's five years in prison if he doesn't, what choice
> does he have? The Democrats have essentially decided they have the
> right to tax you to just be alive. This is utterly new in America,
> as far as I can tell.
Not really. Isn't Social Security the same principle, in the form of a
compulsory purchase of a pension rather than a compulsory purchase of
medical insurance?
Jon M
wrote:
>"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> Given that it's five years in prison if he doesn't, what choice
>> does he have? The Democrats have essentially decided they have the
>> right to tax you to just be alive. This is utterly new in America,
>> as far as I can tell. Will there be a federal police force of
>> compliance running around kicking doors down and demanding you
>> provide them with proof of health insurance?
>
>From the cited Wall Street Journal article:
>
>"people who choose to go uncovered would generally
>have to pay a penalty equal to as much as 2.5% of their income."
>
>So if all you do is just be alive, your income will be zero and your
>tax will be zero. On the other hand, if you have an income, you will be
>taxed. For some time here in this universe, we have had something
>called an "income tax." This is an income tax. It is not quite as
>surprising as you seem to think.
Ever since I was a sprout, I've been familiar with the expression
"Nothing certain in this life but death and taxes." While the
expression doesn't imply that you have to pay a tax just to exist,
neither does this. If you are as unemployed as Shawn is, your health
insurance tax should be quite low.
Jon M
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
David Friedman wrote:
>
> In article <4AF86B63...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Given that it's five years in prison if he doesn't, what choice
> > does he have? The Democrats have essentially decided they have the
> > right to tax you to just be alive. This is utterly new in America,
> > as far as I can tell.
>
> Not really. Isn't Social Security the same principle, in the form of a
> compulsory purchase of a pension rather than a compulsory purchase of
> medical insurance?
>
While Social Security is an evil, it isn't a tax just on being
alive. In the case of forced health insurance, you must buy in even
without any income. And the punishment for resistance is prison.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
David Friedman wrote:
>
> In article <hd9m70$keh$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > OK. I guess I can live with mixed bag. Although I would also insist that
> > Shawn NOT take advantage of this very bad thing and obtain any kind of
> > health insurance.
>
> Is that conditional on his not having to pay any additional taxes, in
> one form or another, to the government? I don't think that's an option
> under the present bill, since there is a penalty for not being insured.
>
Prison. It would be far better to just provide a minimum level of
coverage for "free" to everyone, which is actually the case today
anyway, than what they passed in the House.
Kim
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> Given that it's five years in prison if he doesn't, what choice
>> does he have? The Democrats have essentially decided they have the
>> right to tax you to just be alive. This is utterly new in America,
>> as far as I can tell. Will there be a federal police force of
>> compliance running around kicking doors down and demanding you
>> provide them with proof of health insurance?
>
> From the cited Wall Street Journal article:
>
> "people who choose to go uncovered would generally
> have to pay a penalty equal to as much as 2.5% of their income."
>
> So if all you do is just be alive, your income will be zero and your
> tax will be zero. On the other hand, if you have an income, you will
> be
> taxed. For some time here in this universe, we have had something
> called an "income tax." This is an income tax. It is not quite as
> surprising as you seem to think.
It's irresponsible to run around saying "OH MY GOD - People are going to go
to prison for not having insurance!!!"
That's not even what the Ways & Means site states - if you have any reading
comprehension at all.
The letter quoted is citing what COULD happen if someone WILLFULLY chose not
to pay a tax. And I'm pretty sure that there is already existing legislation
that can put you in jail for not paying taxes. In fact, the letter states
that the penalties for WILLFULLY non-paying of no insurance penalties would
rely on EXISTING laws.
And the letter quoted goes on to state that the tax would NOT be imposed on
anyone who could prove that paying for insurance would be a financial
hardship to them.
So blustering on about all those poor financially disadvantaged people who
are going to go to jail for not being able to buy insurance is ignorant.
WILLFUL ignorance, to boot.
David J. Martin
Socialist.
David
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
So the current system is "socialist"? The current system provides a
minimum level of care to everyone, namely emergency care. An
expansion of that would be better than this intrusion.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Kim wrote:
>
> S. Checker wrote:
> > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >> Given that it's five years in prison if he doesn't, what choice
> >> does he have? The Democrats have essentially decided they have the
> >> right to tax you to just be alive. This is utterly new in America,
> >> as far as I can tell. Will there be a federal police force of
> >> compliance running around kicking doors down and demanding you
> >> provide them with proof of health insurance?
> >
> > From the cited Wall Street Journal article:
> >
> > "people who choose to go uncovered would generally
> > have to pay a penalty equal to as much as 2.5% of their income."
> >
> > So if all you do is just be alive, your income will be zero and your
> > tax will be zero. On the other hand, if you have an income, you will
> > be
> > taxed. For some time here in this universe, we have had something
> > called an "income tax." This is an income tax. It is not quite as
> > surprising as you seem to think.
>
> It's irresponsible to run around saying "OH MY GOD - People are going to go
> to prison for not having insurance!!!"
>
> That's not even what the Ways & Means site states - if you have any reading
> comprehension at all.
>
What does the legislation say? It sure seems to say that prison is
in order if you resist.
> The letter quoted is citing what COULD happen if someone WILLFULLY chose not
> to pay a tax.
>
It's not a bloody damn tax. It's not like they take money out of
your pay check and that pays for a National Health Service. What
this is is just a requirement that you buy something if you are
alive or all hell rains down on you.
http://www.yournews.com/copyroom/mynews.asp
#begin quote
Oregon�s lone Republican Congressman Greg Walden voted with the
minority to try to defeat the 2000 page Health Bill pushed by House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Walden warned that the Pelosi bill is the
worse thing we can do for an already bad economy: �For nearly 22
years, my wife and I were business owners. We know what it�s like
to sign the backside of a payroll check and the front side of a
payroll check. And let me tell you, that this bill that Nancy
Pelosi is putting forward to take over health care kills jobs,
hurts small business and hurts this country.� Walden says a
Republican Health Care Plan would have made health insurance more
affordable and would also have reduced the national debt. Walden
adds the GOP version of health care reform does not include
provisions for prison time for someone who fails to buy health
insurance. The Pelosi Bill does.
#end quote
So I didn't make up the bit about further overcrowding in the
nation's prisons if this item is included in the final legislation,
assuming that there is any.
> And I'm pretty sure that there is already existing legislation
> that can put you in jail for not paying taxes. In fact, the letter states
> that the penalties for WILLFULLY non-paying of no insurance penalties would
> rely on EXISTING laws.
>
There are no existing laws that require you to buy health
insurance.
> And the letter quoted goes on to state that the tax would NOT be imposed on
> anyone who could prove that paying for insurance would be a financial
> hardship to them.
>
When won't it be a financial hardship? The costs are only going up.
This legislation does nothing to address these cost increases.
Whatever people are paying today, in a few years, think double. At
some point, everyone will be in "financial hardship" to pay for
health insurance. You think that the government is going to care?
They'll have this on the books and they'll use it.
> So blustering on about all those poor financially disadvantaged people who
> are going to go to jail for not being able to buy insurance is ignorant.
>
> WILLFUL ignorance, to boot.
>
I'm following this legislation, so I'm not ignorant of it.
Les Albert
>> Frugality is misery in disguise. - Publilius Syrus
>I am perfectly happy not spending money on a bunch of shit I don't
>want or need.
What about the shit you do want or need?
Les
Slow Motion Apocalypse
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:19:36 -0800 (PST), Slow Motion Apocalypse
>
>
>
>
>
I got it covered.
Mark Steese
news:Xns9CBDE38BEA5D7op...@127.0.0.1:
> Mark Steese (mark_...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>> landotter <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bad thing if you're a facile libertarian fundamentalist, whose
>>> economic fantasy world is rewarmed feudalism.
>>
>> Dang, landy, ya gotta start warning people. A knee jerk that
>> violent could hurt somebody.
>
> What sort of warning were you hoping for? You saw the "From" field.
I think that's unfair. Why, just a few hours ago landotter made a perfectly
civil post about cars in the Fifty Ugliest Cars thread. He even provided
helpful links. See? There's hope for everyone.
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found the
banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> Dover Beach wrote: (quoting WSJ)
>
>> At the lowest income level, the subsidy would keep a
>> family of four earning just over $29,000 a year from paying more than
>> 1.5% of their income on insurance premiums.
>
> 1.5% of their income every month or total for a year?
1.5% of their yearly income every year, or 1.5% of their monthly income
every month.
>
>> But for those who don't want insurance, there's a downside. Once these
>> changes take effect, people who choose to go uncovered would generally
>> have to pay a penalty equal to as much as 2.5% of their income.
>
> I don't get this, either. OK - so there's a 1% tax on not being insured.
> Either pay 1.5% in insurance premiums, or 2.5% in penalties.
1.5% only applies to the poorest people. For other families it was
given as 12%. And maybe for other people it is even higher.
> But how does the government know who has insurance and who doesn't?
You'll probably have to write your policy number on your 1040 or
something like that.
>> Large employers: The biggest changes don't directly affect most large
>> employers. The health-insurance plans they currently offer employees
>> would get grandfathered in to protect them from most new insurance
>> requirements. Those offering skimpy coverage, or none at all, would
>> have to pay a fine of up to 8% of their payroll.
>
> Which means more "temporary" and part-time workers at Wal Mart.
Why would it? WalMart does offer coverage, and the quote doesn't say it
doesn't apply to part-time workers anyway.
Xho
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:09:06 -0500, "Kim"
> <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
>> to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
>> I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
It is widely spaced and has fairly big margins, plus line numbering to
make the margins even bigger. (I'm still not going to read it)
>
> I have a little book in front of me with the Declaration of
> Independence, and the Constitution of the Unitet States.
>
> All of 42 pages that serves as the way a country should be run. 2000
> pages for a health care bill.... Come on...
Somewhere in that 42 pages it gives Congress the power the pass laws.
Is there anywhere in those 42 pages that says what the limit on the size
of those laws should be?
bill van
Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9CBDE38BEA5D7op...@127.0.0.1:
>
> > Mark Steese (mark_...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> >> landotter <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Bad thing if you're a facile libertarian fundamentalist, whose
> >>> economic fantasy world is rewarmed feudalism.
> >>
> >> Dang, landy, ya gotta start warning people. A knee jerk that
> >> violent could hurt somebody.
> >
> > What sort of warning were you hoping for? You saw the "From" field.
>
> I think that's unfair. Why, just a few hours ago landotter made a perfectly
> civil post about cars in the Fifty Ugliest Cars thread. He even provided
> helpful links. See? There's hope for everyone.
Over in the Blessed Day thread, he made a post today that seemed to
indicate tolerance of someone's religion. You could have knocked me over
with a feather.
bill
Veronique
> In article <Xns9CBEC663F42BCSte...@188.40.43.213>,
> Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:Xns9CBDE38BEA5D7op...@127.0.0.1:
>
> > > Mark Steese (mark_ste...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > >> landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Bad thing if you're a facile libertarian fundamentalist, whose
> > >>> economic fantasy world is rewarmed feudalism.
>
> > >> Dang, landy, ya gotta start warning people. A knee jerk that
> > >> violent could hurt somebody.
>
> > > What sort of warning were you hoping for? You saw the "From" field.
>
> > I think that's unfair. Why, just a few hours ago landotter made a perfectly
> > civil post about cars in the Fifty Ugliest Cars thread. He even provided
> > helpful links. See? There's hope for everyone.
>
> Over in the Blessed Day thread, he made a post today that seemed to
> indicate tolerance of someone's religion. You could have knocked me over
> with a feather.
Well, I felt blessed.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
S. Checker
>
>
> David Friedman wrote:
>>
>> In article <4AF86B63...@yahoo.co.uk>,
>> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Given that it's five years in prison if he doesn't, what choice
>> > does he have? The Democrats have essentially decided they have the
>> > right to tax you to just be alive. This is utterly new in America,
>> > as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Not really. Isn't Social Security the same principle, in the form of a
>> compulsory purchase of a pension rather than a compulsory purchase of
>> medical insurance?
>>
> While Social Security is an evil, it isn't a tax just on being
> alive. In the case of forced health insurance, you must buy in even
> without any income. And the punishment for resistance is prison.
Unless, of course, you actually read the bill.
..(a) TAX IMPOSED..In the case of any individual
who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of.
(1) the taxpayer.s modified adjusted gross in
come for the taxable year, over
..(2) the amount of gross income specified in
section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
What's 2.5 percent of zero? Do you need a hint?
For that matter, it goes on to say that the tax will be limited to the
average premium, so if Bill Gates chooses to self-insure, he'll pay the
average premium, not 2.5% of a jillion dollars.
And yes, if you don't pay your taxes you go to prison, or more likely
wind up with your assets and wages yanked. But if your income is zero,
your tax is zero (there's your hint!).
--
If someone asks for a cite of John Ashcroft's antlike mandibles
squeezing the thorax of an American, then by gosh the given cite should
include John Ashcroft and mandibles,
-- Groo, in afc-a
S. Checker
That's a great question!
It says:
`SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the
requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year,
there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of--
`(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable
year, over
`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with
respect to the taxpayer.
>
>> The letter quoted is citing what COULD happen if someone WILLFULLY chose not
>> to pay a tax.
>>
> It's not a bloody damn tax. It's not like they take money out of
> your pay check and that pays for a National Health Service. What
> this is is just a requirement that you buy something if you are
> alive or all hell rains down on you.
That's funny, it's called a tax. On AGI. Which is income. It's a, um,
what's the term of art I'm looking for? "Income tax?"
>
> http://www.yournews.com/copyroom/mynews.asp
> #begin quote
> Oregon?s lone Republican Congressman Greg Walden voted with the
> minority to try to defeat the 2000 page Health Bill pushed by House
> Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Walden warned that the Pelosi bill is the
> worse thing we can do for an already bad economy: ?For nearly 22
> years, my wife and I were business owners. We know what it?s like
> to sign the backside of a payroll check and the front side of a
> payroll check. And let me tell you, that this bill that Nancy
> Pelosi is putting forward to take over health care kills jobs,
> hurts small business and hurts this country.? Walden says a
It doesn't seem like you've read it. Try
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:
--
I woke up thinking about Turkish drummers
It didn't take long - I don't know much about Turkish drummers.
-- Bruce Cockburn
S. Checker
> On Nov 8, 11:11?am, Slow Motion Apocalypse
Public service announcements are just a different kind of prison.
--
Not being a geologist, I can't get very technical but it just went
kaboom...
Chief Ranger Denny Ziemann
art...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Kim wrote:
> > Dover Beach wrote: (quoting WSJ)
> >> Large employers: The biggest changes don't directly affect most large
> >> employers. The health-insurance plans they currently offer employees
> >> would get grandfathered in to protect them from most new insurance
> >> requirements. Those offering skimpy coverage, or none at all, would
> >> have to pay a fine of up to 8% of their payroll.
>
> > Which means more "temporary" and part-time workers at Wal Mart.
>
> Why would it? WalMart does offer coverage, and the quote doesn't say it
> doesn't apply to part-time workers anyway.
I wonder whether organizations/corporations (such as the one I work
for) will be required to have better than skimpy insurance for part
timers like me. Currently, my insurance is as skimpy as a hooker's
dress; I could get much more bang for my buck with the hooker.
I have heard rumors that our college wants to eliminate all insurance
for part timers. Our contract comes up for renewal next year; our
union would fight this, but it might depend on whatever federal laws
are passed.
We have a new college president; he is not known for his capacity for
compromise or negotiation.
I suspect things will get ugly.
Joseph Nebus
>Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 11:11?am, Slow Motion Apocalypse
>> <slowmotionapocaly...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How else does a government "encourage" except thru laws, fines, taxes,
>>> jail etc ?
>>
>> Advertising (PSAs), sponsorship, reimbursement, tax *credits*, etc.
>Public service announcements are just a different kind of prison.
Teaches you, though. Spend three years sentenced to recording
announcements telling people not to smoke and don't drive while rooting
around the trunk and you'll never repeat whatever the original offense
was.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was an unauthorized game of croquet, on the Interstate.
Peter Boulding
<Xns9CBD9E0D...@130.133.1.4>:
>>>>>> Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I
>>>>>> need someone to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad
>>>>>> thing", because there's no way I'm reading all 1990 pages of
>>>>>> the bill.
...
>> Bad thing if you're a facile libertarian fundamentalist, whose
>> economic fantasy world is rewarmed feudalism.
>Dang, landy, ya gotta start warning people. A knee jerk that violent
>could hurt somebody.
This whole subthread is somewhat gigglesome to anyone reading this from
outside the US--where Landlotter's comment is fairly uncontroversial and
Mark's response a trifle incomprehensible...
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Music and Images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ and
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
Bill Turlock
>
> spa...@gmail.com (S. Checker) writes:
>
> >Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 8, 11:11?am, Slow Motion Apocalypse
> >> <slowmotionapocaly...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> How else does a government "encourage" except thru laws, fines, taxes,
> >>> jail etc ?
> >>
> >> Advertising (PSAs), sponsorship, reimbursement, tax *credits*, etc.
>
> >Public service announcements are just a different kind of prison.
>
> Teaches you, though. Spend three years sentenced to recording
> announcements telling people not to smoke and don't drive while rooting
> around the trunk and you'll never repeat whatever the original offense
> was.
"We're Number 37" - Paul Hipp
S. Checker
> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> writes:
>
>>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:09:06 -0500, "Kim"
>><darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
>>needed.
>
> OK, I'll bite. What's the maximum possible number of pages that
> a proposed law may have to have any chance of being good, then?
1989. It missed it by *that* much.
--
Officials with the Texas Highway Patrol could not confirm the story but
did say that driving topless in Texas was legal. "It's not like we've
had an outbreak of nude driving," a spokeswoman said.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
You'd like to pretend that it was just an income tax. Or like car
insurance:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html
#begin quote
During an exclusive interview with ABC News� Jake Tapper today,
President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who
try to �free ride� the health care system but stopped short of
endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a
fine for not having insurance.
�What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody
has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some
penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy
insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you
and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a
thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are --
are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health
insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.�
#end quote
It's not like that. With auto insurance, if someone doesn't have
the money, they just don't drive. But in this case, you can't not
be alive. If you don't have the money, what do you do? And it is
just fantasy that health insurance can be had for "2.5%" of income
when someone's income isn't astronomical. Consider these comments
from a new Democrat senator:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/10/warner-obama-misplayed-health-care-debate/print/
#begin quote
The Washington Times
Originally published 11:59 a.m., November 10, 2009, updated 12:30
p.m., November 10, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Warner: Obama misplayed health care debate
Freshman Sen. Mark Warner, Virginia Democrat, said Tuesday that
President Obama has misplayed his attempt to reform U.S. heath care
by focusing on insurance coverage instead of explaining that the
current system is headed toward a financial meltdown.
"I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining
to the American people that our current health care system is not
financially sustainable, for even another decade," Mr. Warner said.
"Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the
debate."
Mr. Warner, 54, made millions investing in technology ventures
before he became Virginia's governor from 2002 to 2006 and helped
cut the state's $6 billion deficit through a tax package.
On Tuesday, he told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News"
radio show the key points of the debate should be that the largest
contributor to the U.S deficit is federal spending on health care,
Medicare will go bankrupt in the next seven years and the average
American family will spend 40 percent of its disposable income on
health care insurance.
#end quote
Read that again: "[T]he average American family will spend 40
percent of its disposable income on health care insurance."
> > I'm following this legislation, so I'm not ignorant of it.
>
> It doesn't seem like you've read it. Try
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:
>
It's almost 2000 pages. You haven't read it either.
Heather
wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:40:20 -0500, "Kim"
><darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't get this, either. OK - so there's a 1% tax on not being insured.
>>Either pay 1.5% in insurance premiums, or 2.5% in penalties.
>>
>>But how does the government know who has insurance and who doesn't? Are your
>>neighbors going to be encouraged to rat you out if you run around saying "I
>>don't have health insurance! WOO HOO!"
>
>The way the Australian government handles this issue is to require an
>insurance policy number as part of your tax return. They then check
>this with the insurance companies. If you don't have insurance, then
>you get to pay extra tax. If it doesn't cover you for all of the year,
>then you get to pay slightly less extra tax.
Note: This extra tax on those who do not have private health insurance
is only on people with incomes of over $150,000 per annum (it cuts in
at a higher amount for those with dependants) and is in addition to
the basic medicare levy, which is also a percentage based on income.
It replaces the medicare surcharge on people with high incomes and
actually costs them less than the old system did.
--
Heather
S. Checker
>
>> That's funny, it's called a tax. On AGI. Which is income. It's a, um,
>> what's the term of art I'm looking for? "Income tax?"
>>
> You'd like to pretend that it was just an income tax. Or like car
> insurance:
I'd like to pretend it's an income tax, when it's a tax on income? You
betcha, Sport.
>
> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html
> #begin quote
> During an exclusive interview with ABC News? Jake Tapper today,
> President Obama said that penalties are appropriate for people who
> try to ?free ride? the health care system but stopped short of
> endorsing the threat of jail time for those who refuse to pay a
> fine for not having insurance.
>
> ?What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody
> has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some
> penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy
> insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you
> and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a
> thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are --
> are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health
> insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.?
> #end quote
>
> It's not like that. With auto insurance, if someone doesn't have
> the money, they just don't drive. But in this case, you can't not
> be alive. If you don't have the money, what do you do? And it is
> just fantasy that health insurance can be had for "2.5%" of income
> when someone's income isn't astronomical. Consider these comments
> from a new Democrat senator:
If you don't have the income, you don't pay the tax. I'll ask again,
what is 2.5% of zero? As for whether the 2.5% will pay for the
insurance, it's not paying for insurance. It's paying for uninsured
people. I think if you go to the hospital and ask for a new liver with
no insurance, they'll still ask for cash in advance. If you have
insurance, you're not paying the 2.5% of your income. And hey, if they
want to increase the penalty, they'll have to pass that in Congress as
well. Sen. Pelosi can't pull out a double-secret version of the bill
after it's passed and say "we fooled you, it's actually 40%!"
What does that have to do with a penalty tax for people with no health
insurance?
>
>
>> > I'm following this legislation, so I'm not ignorant of it.
>>
>> It doesn't seem like you've read it. Try
>> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:
>>
> It's almost 2000 pages. You haven't read it either.
>
I was doing something when I quoted the bill to you. You're just
blowing smoke out of your ass. Read the bill that passed then tell me
where it says you have to pay if you have no income.
--
When you said "HEAVILY FORESTED" it reminded me of an overdue CLEANING
BILL ... Don't you SEE? O'Grogan SWALLOWED a VALUABLE COIN COLLECTION
and HAD to murder the ONLY MAN who KNEW!
Snidely
wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:09:06 -0500, "Kim" quipped
> >Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> >to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> >I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
> I have a little book in front of me with the Declaration of
> Independence, and the Constitution of the Unitet States.
>
> All of 42 pages that serves as the way a country should be run. 2000
> pages for a health care bill.... Come on...
Compare your employer's mission statement with a project proposal,
then with the implementation plan/specifications (and if you're a
programmer, go on to the lines of code).
/dps
Ted The Cat
Forgive me if you have already dealt with this, but if some medical
calamity should occur causing you great pain or risk of death, should
a hospital be required to treat you knowing that there is no way for
you to pay for the treatment?
Slow Motion Apocalypse
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I've never dealt with that. Hopefully I never will.
Kim
This is just typical Bill Bonde stuff.
"OMG EVERYONE IS GOING TO JAIL IF THEY DON"T BUY INSURANCE!!!"
It's all much ado about nothing, blown out of proportion in typical Bonde
style.
a.) If buying insurance would be a hardship - YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT. So
there's no "Putting a gun to anyone's head" or "having to buy in with no
income." In fact, if you truly DON'T have any income, you'll probably be
given Medicaid for free - if you don't already have it even before all this
kicks in. Since with no income, you qualify. And then you'd have insurance
and you don't have to worry about it.
b.) There's no "punishment for resistance." The tax is for people who don't
have insurance WILLFULLY. That means, they are staging some bizarre protest
over the whole thing - like the people who put hand lettered "I don't
believe in the government so I don't have a plate" license plates on their
cars. WILLFUL RESISTANCE, get it? *Those* people will have a tax imposed.
And those people will have to pay those taxes. And guess what, if you don't
pay taxes, you get to go to jail. But there's a lot of steps in between
"buying health insurance" and "going to jail" and there's a lot of laws
being broken to get from one to the other. And people that break the law
sometimes go to jail. Even without FORCED health care and OMG WE ARE ALL
GOING TO JAIL BECAUSE WE HAVE NO MONEY AND CAN'T BUY INSURANCE OMG SOCIALIST
MEDICINE.
Kim
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "S. Checker" wrote:
>>
>>> That's funny, it's called a tax. On AGI. Which is income. It's a,
>>> um, what's the term of art I'm looking for? "Income tax?"
>>>
>> You'd like to pretend that it was just an income tax. Or like car
>> insurance:
>
> I'd like to pretend it's an income tax, when it's a tax on income? You
> betcha, Sport.
Typical Bonde misdirection.
Bonde is conflating the cost of insurance and the tax imposed on people who
don't have insurance and spinning that around like they are one and the same
thing, so that he can CLAIM that if people don't buy insurance, they shall
be carted off to prison.
When that's not true at all. People who WILLFULLY RESIST will have a "fine"
imposed in the form of a "tax". If they don't pay THAT, THEN they shall be
carted off to prison. So, in essence, someone could absolutely REFUSE to buy
insurance and be willfully resistant all the live long day. And as long as
they pay the fine for not buying insurance, they aren't going to be carted
off anywhere. They can go about their business and the government won't give
a shit.
But Bonde won't seperate the two long enough to see that, because it isn't a
good sound bite for his OMG INDIGENT PEOPLE SHALL BE CARTED OFF TO PRISON
doomsday posts.
> I was doing something when I quoted the bill to you. You're just
> blowing smoke out of your ass. Read the bill that passed then tell me
> where it says you have to pay if you have no income.
But that spoils all his fun.
Rick B.
@fernon.pffcu.org:
> Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:09:06 -0500, "Kim"
>>><darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> there's no way
>>>> I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>>
>>>If it runs 1990 pages, it's a bad bill. No further information
>>>needed.
>>
>> OK, I'll bite. What's the maximum possible number of pages that
>> a proposed law may have to have any chance of being good, then?
>
> 1989. It missed it by *that* much.
They couldn't run it through "Make It Fit"?
huey.c...@gmail.com
> S. Checker wrote:
> > <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "S. Checker" wrote:
> >>> That's funny, it's called a tax. On AGI. Which is income. It's a,
> >>> um, what's the term of art I'm looking for? "Income tax?"
> >> You'd like to pretend that it was just an income tax. Or like car
> >> insurance:
> > I'd like to pretend it's an income tax, when it's a tax on income?
> > You betcha, Sport.
> Typical Bonde misdirection.
>
> Bonde is conflating the cost of insurance and the tax imposed on
> people who don't have insurance and spinning that around like they are
> one and the same thing, so that he can CLAIM that if people don't buy
> insurance, they shall be carted off to prison.
>
> When that's not true at all. People who WILLFULLY RESIST will have a
> "fine" imposed in the form of a "tax". If they don't pay THAT, THEN
> they shall be carted off to prison. So, in essence, someone could
> absolutely REFUSE to buy insurance and be willfully resistant all the
> live long day. And as long as they pay the fine for not buying
> insurance, they aren't going to be carted off anywhere. They can go
> about their business and the government won't give a shit.
>
> But Bonde won't seperate the two long enough to see that, because it
> isn't a good sound bite for his OMG INDIGENT PEOPLE SHALL BE CARTED
> OFF TO PRISON doomsday posts.
...wait a second. We know Shawn doesn't have a job. Does Bonde?
You may be on to something here.
--
Huey
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Kim wrote:
>
> S. Checker wrote:
> > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> "S. Checker" wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's funny, it's called a tax. On AGI. Which is income. It's a,
> >>> um, what's the term of art I'm looking for? "Income tax?"
> >>>
> >> You'd like to pretend that it was just an income tax. Or like car
> >> insurance:
> >
> > I'd like to pretend it's an income tax, when it's a tax on income? You
> > betcha, Sport.
>
> Typical Bonde misdirection.
>
> Bonde is conflating the cost of insurance and the tax imposed on people who
> don't have insurance and spinning that around like they are one and the same
> thing, so that he can CLAIM that if people don't buy insurance, they shall
> be carted off to prison.
>
We don't know exactly what will happen because likely if people
resist, there will be the question about whether or not putting
people in prison for this makes sense given that murderers and
other violent criminals are being let out. But do you really
believe that government is going to cover the difference between
2.5% of your income and whatever the true cost of health insurance
is? What sort of health insurance can you get for 2.5% of income?
> When that's not true at all. People who WILLFULLY RESIST will have a "fine"
> imposed in the form of a "tax".
>
Now a "fine" is a "tax"? Who is misdirecting?
> If they don't pay THAT, THEN they shall be
> carted off to prison. So, in essence, someone could absolutely REFUSE to buy
> insurance and be willfully resistant all the live long day. And as long as
> they pay the fine for not buying insurance, they aren't going to be carted
> off anywhere. They can go about their business and the government won't give
> a shit.
>
> But Bonde won't seperate the two long enough to see that, because it isn't a
> good sound bite for his OMG INDIGENT PEOPLE SHALL BE CARTED OFF TO PRISON
> doomsday posts.
>
I can't claim it's limited to "indigent people". In fact, I suspect
that people with no money will be covered under the plan. But what
about people who are somewhere in between? They were making it but
they couldn't afford to pay for health insurance. That's the people
described as "the working poor" that this is supposed to help. I
suspect that the problems will go well beyond just that class of
folks, however.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Greg Goss wrote:
>
> "Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> >to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> >I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>
> The "house" side was going to pass anyways. It's the Senate that's
> paralyzed.
>
> I would be a supporter if I were American. The current system is a
> disaster, and the Republican "proposal" would make it worse.
>
The current system has people paying for their own health insurance
unless they fit into certain categories. Everyone is treated for a
certain base level although they can still be charged for that. If
there really is a problem, why not increase that base level and
find ways to ameliorate the costs for those at that level? Why come
up with a whole new entitlement? Or worse, why threaten to put
people in prison if they choose to opt out?
Jon M
vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Greg Goss wrote:
>>
>> "Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
>> >to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
>> >I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
>>
>> The "house" side was going to pass anyways. It's the Senate that's
>> paralyzed.
>>
>> I would be a supporter if I were American. The current system is a
>> disaster, and the Republican "proposal" would make it worse.
>>
>The current system has people paying for their own health insurance
>unless they fit into certain categories. Everyone is treated for a
>certain base level although they can still be charged for that.
That base level involves going to an emergency room if you're really
sick where they will treat you until you are either stable enough to
be pushed back onto the street or you die. Then they will charge you.
If you can't pay, they'll hound you into bankruptcy.
If you have an asthma attack, they'll pump you full of drugs until you
can breath on your own again, then push you out. The drugs and
doctor's visits after that are payable in advance and the next time
you can get medical help without cash is when your lips start turning
blue. That's a pretty low base level and a pretty inefficient use of
emergency rooms.
Jon M
S. Checker
>
>
> Kim wrote:
>>
>> S. Checker wrote:
>> > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> > <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "S. Checker" wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> That's funny, it's called a tax. On AGI. Which is income. It's a,
>> >>> um, what's the term of art I'm looking for? "Income tax?"
>> >>>
>> >> You'd like to pretend that it was just an income tax. Or like car
>> >> insurance:
>> >
>> > I'd like to pretend it's an income tax, when it's a tax on income? You
>> > betcha, Sport.
>>
>> Typical Bonde misdirection.
>>
>> Bonde is conflating the cost of insurance and the tax imposed on people who
>> don't have insurance and spinning that around like they are one and the same
>> thing, so that he can CLAIM that if people don't buy insurance, they shall
>> be carted off to prison.
>>
> We don't know exactly what will happen because likely if people
> resist, there will be the question about whether or not putting
> people in prison for this makes sense given that murderers and
> other violent criminals are being let out. But do you really
> believe that government is going to cover the difference between
> 2.5% of your income and whatever the true cost of health insurance
> is? What sort of health insurance can you get for 2.5% of income?
We're pretty sure of what happens when you don't pay your taxes. If you
have assets or a salary, the government gets their hooks into it. If
you don't, you have to pay 2.5% of zero. Do you know what 2.5% of zero
is? I don't think you do. It's zero. So you have to pay zero dollars
and zero cents to the government. They don't generally jail you for
non-payment of non-taxes.
You don't get any sort of health insurance for 2.5% of income. That's
the penalty tax for not having insurance. Why are you pretending you
don't understand that?
>> When that's not true at all. People who WILLFULLY RESIST will have a "fine"
>> imposed in the form of a "tax".
>>
> Now a "fine" is a "tax"? Who is misdirecting?
>
>
>> If they don't pay THAT, THEN they shall be
>> carted off to prison. So, in essence, someone could absolutely REFUSE to buy
>> insurance and be willfully resistant all the live long day. And as long as
>> they pay the fine for not buying insurance, they aren't going to be carted
>> off anywhere. They can go about their business and the government won't give
>> a shit.
>>
>> But Bonde won't seperate the two long enough to see that, because it isn't a
>> good sound bite for his OMG INDIGENT PEOPLE SHALL BE CARTED OFF TO PRISON
>> doomsday posts.
>>
> I can't claim it's limited to "indigent people". In fact, I suspect
> that people with no money will be covered under the plan. But what
> about people who are somewhere in between? They were making it but
> they couldn't afford to pay for health insurance. That's the people
> described as "the working poor" that this is supposed to help. I
> suspect that the problems will go well beyond just that class of
> folks, however.
People in between will have a choice between buying health insurance
and paying 2.5% of their AGI. It's in the bill. Have you read the bill,
Bill?
--
My love complies with all EEOC, OSHA, and Department of Education
regulations.
-- Late Afternoon with Dean Webb
Kim
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Kim wrote:
>>>
>>> S. Checker wrote:
>>>> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>>>> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "S. Checker" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's funny, it's called a tax. On AGI. Which is income. It's a,
>>>>>> um, what's the term of art I'm looking for? "Income tax?"
>>>>>>
>>>>> You'd like to pretend that it was just an income tax. Or like car
>>>>> insurance:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to pretend it's an income tax, when it's a tax on income?
>>>> You betcha, Sport.
>>>
>>> Typical Bonde misdirection.
>>>
>>> Bonde is conflating the cost of insurance and the tax imposed on
>>> people who don't have insurance and spinning that around like they
>>> are one and the same thing, so that he can CLAIM that if people
>>> don't buy insurance, they shall be carted off to prison.
>>>
>> We don't know exactly what will happen because likely if people
>> resist, there will be the question about whether or not putting
>> people in prison for this makes sense given that murderers and
>> other violent criminals are being let out.
OK - there you go - right there. See where you say "there will be the
question about whether or not putting people in jail FOR THIS...."
Now, define for me "THIS" - here's a hint. It's not "not buying health
insurance." That "THIS" should be spelled out as "not paying their taxes."
Now, if you have a problem or an issue with putting people in jail for not
paying their taxes, in light of the fact that murderers and other violent
criminals are being let out, well, OK, there's a discussion. But, it's an
entirely DIFFERENT discussion than "health insurance."
Because you use words to misdirect. You use the word "this", rather than
spell out the actual issue. Instead of saying "there will be the question
about whether or not putting people in jail for non payment of taxes makes
sense given that murderers and other violent criminals are being let out",
you use the word "this" so that you can misdirect people into thinking that
"OMG PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN JAIL FOR NOT BUYING INSURANCE."
Do you see that? Don't you think that's irresponsible?
>But do you really
>> believe that government is going to cover the difference between
>> 2.5% of your income and whatever the true cost of health insurance
>> is? What sort of health insurance can you get for 2.5% of income?
I thought you "were following this legislation" and thus, were, "not
ignorant of it." Since you don't even seem to be able to follow along with
the figures, I suspect that you aren't following the legislation very well,
either. That 2.5% you state above is the PENALTY, not the amount the plan
expects you to pay in insurance.
>
> We're pretty sure of what happens when you don't pay your taxes. If
> you
> have assets or a salary, the government gets their hooks into it. If
> you don't, you have to pay 2.5% of zero. Do you know what 2.5% of zero
> is? I don't think you do. It's zero. So you have to pay zero dollars
> and zero cents to the government. They don't generally jail you for
> non-payment of non-taxes.
>
> You don't get any sort of health insurance for 2.5% of income. That's
> the penalty tax for not having insurance. Why are you pretending you
> don't understand that?
You know, I'm not even sure if he truly doesn't understand the proposals or
if he does know what's going on and he's just willfully being stupid to stir
up shit.
Both are rather pathetic scenarios, but I do wonder which one he falls
under.
>>>
>> I can't claim it's limited to "indigent people". In fact, I suspect
>> that people with no money will be covered under the plan. But what
>> about people who are somewhere in between? They were making it but
>> they couldn't afford to pay for health insurance. That's the people
>> described as "the working poor" that this is supposed to help. I
>> suspect that the problems will go well beyond just that class of
>> folks, however.
Which is what's sad about this sub-thead. There are legitimate debates and
questions about this plan. Things that we should be discussing and
speculating on. But when people like you start with the smoke and mirrors
and take the discussion off on an entirely foolish tangent of OMG PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO PRISON IF THEY DON'T BUY INSURANCE, then somehow the valid
discussions and questions get lost.
But at least it illuminates the point that if a reasonably intelligent
person such as yourself, someone who claims to have been "following he
legislation", can't differentiate between what is actually said in the
proposal and what isn't, and a relatively intelligent person such as
yourself can't understand the difference between "going to jail for not
paying taxes" and "going to jail for not buying insurance", well, how is
this entire country going to engage in a valid and worthwhile discussion of
the plan?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Jon M wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:45:23 +0000, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius
> vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Greg Goss wrote:
> >>
> >> "Kim" <darwinexcepti...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Where's the thread on the health care bill that was passed? I need someone
> >> >to tell me if it's "a good thing" or "a bad thing", because there's no way
> >> >I'm reading all 1990 pages of the bill.
> >>
> >> The "house" side was going to pass anyways. It's the Senate that's
> >> paralyzed.
> >>
> >> I would be a supporter if I were American. The current system is a
> >> disaster, and the Republican "proposal" would make it worse.
> >>
> >The current system has people paying for their own health insurance
> >unless they fit into certain categories. Everyone is treated for a
> >certain base level although they can still be charged for that.
>
> That base level involves going to an emergency room if you're really
> sick where they will treat you until you are either stable enough to
> be pushed back onto the street or you die. Then they will charge you.
> If you can't pay, they'll hound you into bankruptcy.
>
Right.
> If you have an asthma attack, they'll pump you full of drugs until you
> can breath on your own again, then push you out. The drugs and
> doctor's visits after that are payable in advance and the next time
> you can get medical help without cash is when your lips start turning
> blue. That's a pretty low base level and a pretty inefficient use of
> emergency rooms.
>
So if the conclusion is that that's too low, then fix that. But I'd
oppose a tax (fine actually) for being alive.
S. Checker
Me too! Good thing that isn't going to happen!
--
Do not question too much, lest your head fall off.
-- The Upanishads
groo
> But at least it illuminates the point that if a reasonably intelligent
> person such as yourself,
Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
--
"I was nimble as a cat. I always managed to land on all fours." - Dr.
Tobias Funke on "Arrested Development"
Greg Goss
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>http://www.yournews.com/copyroom/mynews.asp
>Republican Congressman Greg Walden
>So I didn't make up the bit about further overcrowding in the
>nation's prisons if this item is included in the final legislation,
>assuming that there is any.
You expect to convince us with a quote from a REPUBLICAN? We could
toss a dozen known lies by pubs who obviously knew better on this
topic.
Try again with a cite from someone not associated with lies.
--
apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
Mark Steese
@mid.individual.net:
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>http://www.yournews.com/copyroom/mynews.asp
>>Republican Congressman Greg Walden
>
>>So I didn't make up the bit about further overcrowding in the
>>nation's prisons if this item is included in the final legislation,
>>assuming that there is any.
>
> You expect to convince us with a quote from a REPUBLICAN? We could
> toss a dozen known lies by pubs who obviously knew better on this
> topic.
>
> Try again with a cite from someone not associated with lies.
Jesus has published very little on the subject.
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found the
banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things:
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:7m682fF3fs25uU1
>@mid.individual.net:
>
>> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.yournews.com/copyroom/mynews.asp
>>>Republican Congressman Greg Walden
>>
>>>So I didn't make up the bit about further overcrowding in the
>>>nation's prisons if this item is included in the final legislation,
>>>assuming that there is any.
>>
>> You expect to convince us with a quote from a REPUBLICAN? We could
>> toss a dozen known lies by pubs who obviously knew better on this
>> topic.
>>
>> Try again with a cite from someone not associated with lies.
>
>Jesus has published very little on the subject.
No wonder he perished.
--
Sorry I can't stop and talk now,
I'm in kind of a hurry anyhow,
but I'll send you a tape from California.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Greg Goss wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >http://www.yournews.com/copyroom/mynews.asp
> >Republican Congressman Greg Walden
>
> >So I didn't make up the bit about further overcrowding in the
> >nation's prisons if this item is included in the final legislation,
> >assuming that there is any.
>
> You expect to convince us with a quote from a REPUBLICAN? We could
> toss a dozen known lies by pubs who obviously knew better on this
> topic.
>
If you are going to discount anything that the other party says as
"lies", discussion has certainly been reduced to not bloody much.
> Try again with a cite from someone not associated with lies.
> --
> apart from one noisy guy up in Canada, no-one wants
> a three-cylinder tissue box on bicycle tires.
--
Greg Goss
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>If you are going to discount anything that the other party says as
>"lies", discussion has certainly been reduced to not bloody much.
For someone spouting the talking points of the "party of no", you've
been keeping up on the Republican patter this year. From "death
panels" to "Kenya", it's pretty clear that the truth doesn't matter at
all to one of the parties involved.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
David J. Martin
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If you are going to discount anything that the other party says as
>> "lies", discussion has certainly been reduced to not bloody much.
>
> For someone spouting the talking points of the "party of no", you've
> been keeping up on the Republican patter this year. From "death
> panels" to "Kenya", it's pretty clear that the truth doesn't matter at
> all to one of the parties involved.
On the CBS morning show last week Ann Coulter praised the power of Sarah
Palin by saying "she sends out a Twitter post on the death panels and
suddenly, that's all everyone's talking about, and it gets the death
panel killed." Apparently they are still flogging that one.
David
M. Shirley Chong
> On the CBS morning show last week Ann Coulter praised the power of Sarah
> Palin by saying "she sends out a Twitter post on the death panels and
> suddenly, that's all everyone's talking about, and it gets the death
> panel killed." Apparently they are still flogging that one.
What's really sad is that the provision for seniors to get a
consultation with their doctor once every five years (or more often
for people in bad health) was a great idea.
It certainly would have helped me when I was hospitalised and all of
a sudden, they're asking me what I want as a future directive. I was
extremely sick and they weren't sure I was going to make it, so when
I was arguably lucid, they wanted to know things like "do you wish
to be resuscitated if your heart stops?" and things like that. There
was a whole checklist and while I knew what some of the things on it
were and what the implications and likely results would be, I didn't
know them all.
I had a resident to ask and the resident was far more frightened
than I was and given to euphemisms and sugarcoating stuff. I'm from
a medical family and used to getting the straight facts.
Plus, I was only arguably lucid. I'm sure I sounded like I was
making sense. But how lucid is someone who is seeing ponies and
foxes walking the corridors of the hospital? Not to mention all the
cats in my room and me not knowing a one of them.
Much, much better to do all this when one is healthy, definitely
lucid and has time to talk to someone familiar about all the various
options.
Shirley
Mark Steese
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If you are going to discount anything that the other party says as
>>"lies", discussion has certainly been reduced to not bloody much.
>
> For someone spouting the talking points of the "party of no", you've
> been keeping up on the Republican patter this year. From "death
> panels" to "Kenya", it's pretty clear that the truth doesn't matter at
> all to one of the parties involved.
One of the parties involved in this discussion seems to be trying to
create the impression that all Republicans endorse the lie that Obama
was born in Kenya.