Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Care reports coming in - HORROR STORIES

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • VH67,
    Sounds like Communism to me!
    Impoverishing savers? Who is going to start up a business when people are impoverished? Poor people don't start businesses and EVERYONE suffers. Poor people don't pay taxes. Obama's policies are destroying Freedoms, and that is exactly what he wants to do.

    We are talking about Ms. Yellon's statement of impoverishing savers. Where did I talk about Bush? Both Obama & Yellon are in agreement that impoverishing savers serves the collective good of society. Obama is placing yet another Socialist Liberal in High Office.

    This is in line with Obama PUNISHING investment income by substantially raising taxes on dividends & other investments. Obama's wants to destroy individualism and replace it with the "common Good of the collective." This is clear in Obamacare by punishing the middle class to force everyone to pay for medical procedures they don't want or need and substantially raising premiums, deductibles & copays by those who work to others. Pure socialism... or is it Communism. I get confused. Tell us what the difference is.

    Impeach Obama

    Grizz
    Last edited by Grizz; 11-15-2013, 11:37 AM.

    Comment


    • To be fair, how many young people spend responsibly and worry about things like retirement savings? To be even more fair, how many Americans, of any age, spend responsibly and worry about retirement?
      A lot more than you think. My husband and I both contributed to 401K's in our 20's and were homeowners by our late 20's. You'd be surprised how many I know are saving for retirement.

      http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
      Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
        A lot more than you think. My husband and I both contributed to 401K's in our 20's and were homeowners by our late 20's. You'd be surprised how many I know are saving for retirement.
        More to the point, if I am 20 and want to spend my money on wine, women, and song who the f*cks business is it but mine? Whether I am contributing to my future or blowing it all on hookers it is still my money. It's not a justification to say "Oh, I (the gov't) can spend your money far more responsibly than you can so I'm just going to take it to pay for someone else's healthcare."

        Comment


        • Like most people who are zealots, either right or left, you ignore facts that do not fit your agenda. Ms. Yellen is talking about continuing something that was started prior to Obama to provide cheap money for businesses and to stimulate the economy. Savers do not start new business. Savers are being sacrificed so businesses, not poor people, get cheap money to grow and expand, at theoretically. Of course you did not mention Bush or Bernanke, because that does not fit into your propaganda campaign. As far as I can tell, facts do not exist in your world.

          Do you understand why the interest rates on savings is so low? There is a relationship between what money costs to borrow and what is paid on passive savings accounts. What is your plan to fix the low interest rates in savings? You can't pump cheap money into economy and pay savers high interest rates unless you want the government to lay out more money.

          I bet you blame Obama for TARP too.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by canio6 View Post
            More to the point, if I am 20 and want to spend my money on wine, women, and song who the f*cks business is it but mine? Whether I am contributing to my future or blowing it all on hookers it is still my money. It's not a justification to say "Oh, I (the gov't) can spend your money far more responsibly than you can so I'm just going to take it to pay for someone else's healthcare."
            I agree with you on this but my solution to the problem is probably is little harsher than most people would be willing to implement. If you are an adult and chose not to pay for insurance, you don't qualify for subsidized care and you can not pay for the medical treatment you need, you don't get care unless you can find someone else to pay for it, upfront. Pretty simple. It makes people responsible for themselves. I think every child here should have health care.

            I got my first full-time job in college when I was 20. I have never been without health insurance and I started my first investment account then, too. I paid off my undergrad and graduate student loans ($76K)by the my mid thirties. My husband and I have been very fortunate and are thankful for what we have but we have it mostly because we made wise choices. Life can change at any time and you need to be prepared.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
              A lot more than you think. My husband and I both contributed to 401K's in our 20's and were homeowners by our late 20's. You'd be surprised how many I know are saving for retirement.
              Personal anecdotes are great, but statistics are another matter. Look at the average net worth across all age groups in the US - it is a sad state of affairs. More than half have less than $10,000. It is not an opinion that Americans are not savers as a whole.

              Originally posted by canio6 View Post
              More to the point, if I am 20 and want to spend my money on wine, women, and song who the f*cks business is it but mine? Whether I am contributing to my future or blowing it all on hookers it is still my money. It's not a justification to say "Oh, I (the gov't) can spend your money far more responsibly than you can so I'm just going to take it to pay for someone else's healthcare."
              Who's fucking business is it, when your broke uninsured ass breaks a leg, goes into the ER, racks up $60,000 in bills, and then files for bankruptcy and passes the costs to everyone else? Should I pay for your bills in that case, or will you cut down the beer budget and pay the $60K with your negative net worth?

              Look, healthcare is a social contract. The young need it a lot less, and the old need it a lot more. Considering the cost of healthcare, combined with the inability to work in advanced age, it is near impossible for an old sick person to pay for their own care. The young bear this burden. However, all the young will one day get old, and then they will benefit from the then young's pay of their care. It's not a scary concept to be asked to pay more for someone sick and old, with the idea being that once you are sick and old, someone young will help pay for your care. Really, it's not that scary.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by vh67 View Post
                I agree with you on this but my solution to the problem is probably is little harsher than most people would be willing to implement. If you are an adult and chose not to pay for insurance, you don't qualify for subsidized care and you can not pay for the medical treatment you need, you don't get care unless you can find someone else to pay for it, upfront. Pretty simple. It makes people responsible for themselves. I think every child here should have health care.
                Sure, I can live with that. As for children and healthcare, I think if you cannot provide your kid with insurance you should not have one.

                Originally posted by quikky View Post
                Who's fucking business is it, when your broke uninsured ass breaks a leg, goes into the ER, racks up $60,000 in bills, and then files for bankruptcy and passes the costs to everyone else? Should I pay for your bills in that case, or will you cut down the beer budget and pay the $60K with your negative net worth?

                Look, healthcare is a social contract. The young need it a lot less, and the old need it a lot more. Considering the cost of healthcare, combined with the inability to work in advanced age, it is near impossible for an old sick person to pay for their own care. The young bear this burden. However, all the young will one day get old, and then they will benefit from the then young's pay of their care. It's not a scary concept to be asked to pay more for someone sick and old, with the idea being that once you are sick and old, someone young will help pay for your care. Really, it's not that scary.

                Not yours. Let my broken ass hobble until I die. Deny care at the ER.


                All that said, I am really not opposed to universal, single payer healthcare (in other words the above was hyperbole). I think the way the system is currently set up is ludicrous. That said, Obamacare does not seem to be fixing it nor do I necessarily trust our government/lobbyists/corporations to set up said system. I do not want to see anyone die (besides people who ride loud motorcycles. f*ck them) but I also do not want 1/2 the money disappearing into some bureaucratic blackhole.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by canio6 View Post
                  All that said, I am really not opposed to universal, single payer healthcare (in other words the above was hyperbole). I think the way the system is currently set up is ludicrous. That said, Obamacare does not seem to be fixing it nor do I necessarily trust our government/lobbyists/corporations to set up said system. I do not want to see anyone die (besides people who ride loud motorcycles. f*ck them) but I also do not want 1/2 the money disappearing into some bureaucratic blackhole.
                  I can agree with this. My only counterpoint would be that if everyone is covered, perhaps it will reduce ER visits for non-emergency care.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by quikky View Post
                    I can agree with this. My only counterpoint would be that if everyone is covered, perhaps it will reduce ER visits for non-emergency care.
                    Well, my wife is an Israeli and she does not understand how Israelis pay 7% of their income and are covered from birth-death and we pay 7% of our income (3.5 + 3.5 employer match) and are only covered, sort of, after we reach 60/65/whatever. Also, there if you go to an emergency room with a non-emergency you get charged the full price as they are clear as to which level of care is given where (go to your local clinic for non-emergency stuff etc). Seems like a fair plan to me.

                    Yes, I do understand Israel is smaller so why not let each state set up a system, for what best works for them, this being a system built on federalism and all?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by canio6 View Post
                      Well, my wife is an Israeli and she does not understand how Israelis pay 7% of their income and are covered from birth-death and we pay 7% of our income (3.5 + 3.5 employer match) and are only covered, sort of, after we reach 60/65/whatever. Also, there if you go to an emergency room with a non-emergency you get charged the full price as they are clear as to which level of care is given where (go to your local clinic for non-emergency stuff etc). Seems like a fair plan to me.
                      Sounds reasonable to me, and a better deal than what we get for our money here. However, you have people like Grizz that will call this communism/fascism/kitten-murder and will fight to not let it happen here at all costs. They'd much rather pay more to a for-profit middleman that can kick them out from their plan if they get too sick.

                      Originally posted by canio6 View Post
                      Yes, I do understand Israel is smaller so why not let each state set up a system, for what best works for them, this being a system built on federalism and all?
                      I guess it's because aside from Massachusetts they have not done so? Texas, for example, has like a quarter of its population uninsured. I guess it works for them?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                        A lot more than you think. My husband and I both contributed to 401K's in our 20's and were homeowners by our late 20's. You'd be surprised how many I know are saving for retirement.
                        I was curious as to why Obama Picked Yellon for the Federal reserve. Both Yellon & Obama are Far Left Wing Liberals.
                        Answer: They want to steal your savings. You are not allowed individualism. It is against their Collective Agenda.

                        Here are the absolutely SHOCKING concepts that Yellon proposes if she becomes the new Fed Chairman:

                        Erik Townsend, a retired software entrepreneur turned commodities trader, was at a conference where Yellen gave a speech not long ago. He explained on Jim Puplava's Financial Sense podcast what Yellen may have in store for us:

                        'She was talking in her lecture, about how if there was anything she could do to figure out a way to make interest rates negative, she would do that, because she feels that that's what we need to do to make credit as easy as possible for the people. And I asked the obvious question that none of the San Francisco liberals were asking, which is, what about savers and investors? Doesn't that punish them?'

                        Negative interest rates would mean savers pay interest to the bank and borrowers get paid interest. Although, by the time banks throw on their margins, it's likely that both rates will just approach zero. Townsend continues:

                        'She said, well, we're coming to the point where we have to consider the role of people who have significant savings and their responsibility in society, that it really is selfish to be hoarding it and that we need to create incentives through government for people to spend their savings, because that's exactly what we need in order to rejuvenate the economy.'

                        Making comments about policy is different when you're actually making the policy. But this remarkable way of thinking tells you how Yellen sees the world. And it's a world where savers are bad, spenders are good and borrowers are great.
                        A Global War on Savers
                        Obama is lapping that up. PUNISH SAVERS fits into his socialism agenda perfectly. Impoverishing savers serves the collective good of society.

                        Obama’s Declaration of Collectivism
                        "Our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedom ultimately requires collective action.” This was a redistributionist, income-leveling speech. The “collective” is a socialist idea, not a free-market thought. Collectivism also means “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
                        http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...m-larry-kudlow

                        Impeach Obama

                        Grizz
                        Last edited by Grizz; 11-15-2013, 01:17 PM.

                        Comment


                        • I think that most analysis I have seen on Obamacare neglect the main crux of it.....

                          Once the decision is made that healthcare CAN be a for-profit system, with publicly traded companies that have a fiduciary agreement to produce as much for their stockholders as humanly possible, one is really left with one of two choices:

                          1) Have a system which works very well, so long as you don't use it. This is what we had before and still have today, in which the only people that approve of the system are the young and healthy. Citizens that get cancer, have severe systemic disease, or go to the hospital for emergency care in life-threatening cases, nearly ALL of these people understand that what we have had is broken.....many patients are simply dropped as soon as they get sick, and I don't mean a small portion. It is extremely common.....or if they do get to keep their insurance, the premium will be so high as to essentially suck away all of their income. I had a patient recently that I needed to elect surgery for that was told her premium would be $2700 a month if she wanted to keep her insurance....again, very common. Listening to young guys that think they are invincible to steer healthcare policy is idiotic in the highest. In short, the system MUST abuse the sick and terminal in order to pay for itself.

                          2) Have a system which coerces everyone to PAY for the care of the sick.....this is what Obamacare is, and again, it is either this or allow for the abuse to be targeting to a fewer number of people. Premiums for the young and healthy will get higher, as they now must spread out the extortionate costs for the care of the sick. Add to this that many insurances now are so basic as to be pointless to own, and something had to be done about the abuses of the insurance industry.

                          I have written extensively over my disagreements with both approaches, but the fact remains that once that initial decision is made that it is perfectly fine to base 1/5 of the economy off making money on sick people, there is no way to circle that square. Anyone that believes there are other options than the above under the current structure is in a fantasy. You either abuse a few very harshly, or everyone a little more mildly.

                          I believe in either a single-payer system in which all profit-making off healthcare is mandated by the government, as in modern Germany, or a local level municipal fund that pays for local healthcare through private doctors, like a voucher system but for medical care (a better option but totally unrealistic politically). Healthcare is one area in which all ideas about "personal responsibility" and paying it for oneself are completely out of the question. Resources and risk must be spread out. It is only in how this would be done that is the question.
                          "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                          Comment


                          • As an aside, there are a few local politicians in my state that have brought up the municipal system I outlined, and all are either Green Party or Dems. The Republicans know it would be doom for their corporate masters, so it would never get anywhere.

                            Ex: If you live in a big city, like Burlington here or Miami (my old city), there is a municipal fund setup that buys insurance as a city. Seeing as it has so many people, young and old, sick and healthy, you would have huge buying power. You then ELECT city managers to oversee the fund, and to levy a tax on things bought in the city only. I have seen it proposed for hotels, restaurants, parking fees, etc. It is not across the board and it is not a payroll tax. It is off consumption, not income. One then buys the municipal insurance, which is taken at low rates by doctors in the city in return for a stipend for carrying it. It would be cheaper, more accessible, and the people in control of it would be 10 minutes away, not in a federal office. Nothing that centralized ever works well, period.

                            In smaller communities, like the one I live in, we could buy insurance in partnership with many other small towns, or even by ourselves. My town has about 400 people in it, but even that has sufficient leverage to an insurance company.....then we are only paying for the care of people in our own communities, which would incentivize better health choices at a local level. In places like Dallas, one of the fattest cities in America, our municipal premium would be much higher than in my town or somewhere like Boulder. This would get better policy at a local level for healthcare and prevention, and the city managers could decide in responses by the public what would get covered and to what degree.

                            It would be democratic, local, and not predatory.

                            And I have a better chance of being elected President than it ever happening. We are NOT in charge here.
                            "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                              I think that most analysis I have seen on Obamacare neglect the main crux of it.....

                              Once the decision is made that healthcare CAN be a for-profit system, with publicly traded companies that have a fiduciary agreement to produce as much for their stockholders as humanly possible, one is really left with one of two choices:

                              1) Have a system which works very well, so long as you don't use it. This is what we had before and still have today, in which the only people that approve of the system are the young and healthy. Citizens that get cancer, have severe systemic disease, or go to the hospital for emergency care in life-threatening cases, nearly ALL of these people understand that what we have had is broken.....many patients are simply dropped as soon as they get sick, and I don't mean a small portion. It is extremely common.....or if they do get to keep their insurance, the premium will be so high as to essentially suck away all of their income. I had a patient recently that I needed to elect surgery for that was told her premium would be $2700 a month if she wanted to keep her insurance....again, very common. Listening to young guys that think they are invincible to steer healthcare policy is idiotic in the highest. In short, the system MUST abuse the sick and terminal in order to pay for itself.

                              2) Have a system which coerces everyone to PAY for the care of the sick.....this is what Obamacare is, and again, it is either this or allow for the abuse to be targeting to a fewer number of people. Premiums for the young and healthy will get higher, as they now must spread out the extortionate costs for the care of the sick. Add to this that many insurances now are so basic as to be pointless to own, and something had to be done about the abuses of the insurance industry.

                              I have written extensively over my disagreements with both approaches, but the fact remains that once that initial decision is made that it is perfectly fine to base 1/5 of the economy off making money on sick people, there is no way to circle that square. Anyone that believes there are other options than the above under the current structure is in a fantasy. You either abuse a few very harshly, or everyone a little more mildly.

                              I believe in either a single-payer system in which all profit-making off healthcare is mandated by the government, as in modern Germany, or a local level municipal fund that pays for local healthcare through private doctors, like a voucher system but for medical care (a better option but totally unrealistic politically). Healthcare is one area in which all ideas about "personal responsibility" and paying it for oneself are completely out of the question. Resources and risk must be spread out. It is only in how this would be done that is the question.
                              Once again, I agree with your points. I think #2 is what we now have because #3 (single payer) would have never passed. I think the decision was status quo vs. #2 - they chose #2.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by quikky View Post
                                It's not a scary concept to be forced to pay more for someone sick and old, with the idea being that once you are sick and old, someone young will be forced to pay for your care. Really, it's not that scary.
                                I fixed it for you. Compliance with a law is not voluntary.
                                In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

                                This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X