Congress Voted To Repeal Obamacare
Trey Gowdy posted this article link on Facebook minutes ago.
It is the beginning of the end of Obamacare and a legacy.
* http://thirdestatenewsgroup.com/breakin … d-to-know/
The repeal legislation will go to the Senate next. A complete repeal is expected according to the article, and then the bill will move to President Trump's desk. Replace and repeal.
This is another major Trump victory.Yes, many more poor American's are likely to die unnecessarily.
The next victory will probably be million dollar tax cuts for the wealthy.
Notice a pattern?"Our plan provides every American with access to affordable coverage. Low-income individuals not on Medicaid will receive a refundable tax credit to purchase insurance (meaning they get assistance even if they do not pay income tax). States can also further help low-income Americans through a new Patient and State Stability Fund."
* https://housegop.lpages.co/ahca-faqs/
Sick of hearing repealing Obamacare will lead to healthcare cancellations and people losing insurance. That is exactly what Obamacare did!Obamacare meant 20 million Americans gained healthcare coverage.
The new plan will mean fewer people lose out under Trump but it is still a disgrace to condemn so many of your fellow citizens to unnecessary suffering.
But then the rich need their tax cuts.
As to that nonsense in your quote, why do you believe this stuff? Or anything that comes from Trump.
It is like half a nation acquired brain worms, lol.
Up is down, down is up.Under President Trump the poor won't have any tax, and taxes are reduced for everyone on up. He is chipping away at decades of over regulation and taxation. Americans will be happier!
What are taxes like in the UK? Are they fair for everyone in your opinion?
______________
"The American Health Care Act (AHCA) as amended delivers relief from Obamacare’s taxes and mandates that have hurt job creators, increased premiums, and limited options for patients and health care providers. It returns control of health care from Washington back to the states and restores the free market so Americans can access quality, affordable health care options that are tailored to their needs.
Obamacare was based on a one-size-fits-all approach that put bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care. The law led to higher costs, fewer choices, and less access to the care people need.
The AHCA will deliver the control and choice individuals and families need to access health care that’s right for them. And provide the freedom and flexibility states, job creators, and health care providers need to deliver quality, affordable health care options."
* https://housegop.leadpages.co/healthcare/Of course taxes in the UK are not fair. Our economy has been successively skewed to suit the needs of the wealthy just as yours has over the last thirty years.
I realise there a good number of reasons why you will not see this:
It is hard to understand why someone with millions wants to acquire more by taking from the already disadvantaged. It makes for distrust of humanity in general. Notions of equity and fairness dominate ordinary peoples belief systems but not necessarily those of the elites.
The poor are taught from birth that the wealthy are superior and know what is best.
You do not want to accept that you have been part of the great grinding heel that has fallen on the face of ordinary people across the world in the last few decades.
You might ask why I care. Dead Americans? What that has that got to do with me?
Problem is the poison spreads. The more your one per cent is able to grab, the more every other one per cent wants to grab. Until it is a feeding frenzy.
Not that Democrats are much better of course. The nightmare simply unfolds more slowly with an Obama at the helm rather a Trump.I've been aware of it, but I will not accept it because that would be accepting defeat to pure evil. I'll stay in the fight.
"It is hard to understand why someone with millions wants to acquire more by taking from the already disadvantaged."
This is one of the major failures of socialism. First, the wealthy aren't taking anything from the already disadvantaged; reducing taxes isn't "taking from the disadvantaged". It's leaving money with whoever owns it.
Second, neither you nor anyone else has an ethical right to play Robin Hood. Somehow this very simple fact slips right through the cracks, as if the socialist thinks they own all the wealth of a nation, including what belongs to others.If I had a million dollars I would certainly try to make another. But not by destroying public services (which is what tax cuts inevitably mean), or driving down wages or making the goods or services that everyone needs (like water, healthcare, education, housing) more expensive.
I certainly would not actively seek to destroy trade unions which protect peoples livelihoods, regulatory authorities which maintain public standards, distort reality by investing in Breibart-type misinformation or a hundred other dirty tricks to cheat people out of a decent life.
But every time you make the rich, richer this is what you are doing. You give them more power to con, bully, bamboozle and steal (by rewriting the laws in their favor).
This is what political power means in cash terms:
https://www.census.gov/data.html
Up until 1980 pretty much everyone was getting richer. But you really let your masters pull a fast one. Your own fault for being so naive."If I had a million dollars I would certainly try to make another. But not by destroying public services (which is what tax cuts inevitably mean)"
Only if you define "public services" as providing cradle to grave support of those that don't do a good job of it themselves. There is no need to deny funding to roads, military, police or other govt. services.
And yes, there was a definite need to "destroy unions", although that is a gross exaggeration of what we see. Unions became too powerful, doing exactly what you decry the rich do, and it had to be stopped.
Wilderness, let me play ‘devil's advocate’ and ask:-
• How many millions of dollars does it take to feed and clothe a multi-billionaire?
• Does a MacDonald not cost the same for a millionaire than it does for someone on the minimum wage?
If a super-rich person pays a greater portion of their income in taxes their disposable income is still massive compared to that of a low paid worker. Taking just 1% extra from a low paid worker could mean the difference between eating a proper diet and being malnourished. Taking 10% extra from a multi-millionaire isn’t going to make a great deal of difference to his or her lifestyle.
These two videos demonstrates this in much greater detail, and while it can be seen from the 2nd video that inequality has also increased in the UK over the past 30 years; the differences in inequality in the UK pales into insignificance compared to the USA.
Wealth Inequality in America: https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
Inequality in the UK: https://youtu.be/tvN8zvovDrY
In these videos, if you compare the chart for actual income distribution from the poorest to the richest people in the UK (at 3 minutes into the 2nd video) it’s almost identical to what American’s think ideal wealth distribution should be in the USA (shown at 2:40 in the 1st video). Whereas if you go on and watch the 1st video to the end you’ll see that 1% of Americans own 40% of the nation’s wealth."How many millions of dollars does it take to feed and clothe a multi-billionaire?"
Don't know, and don't care. Whatever the figure is doesn't mean that you have the right to take anything beyond what you decide the rich "need".
"Does a MacDonald not cost the same for a millionaire than it does for someone on the minimum wage? "
Exactly so. Then why do you demand that the millionaire pays 100X as much for the services of government?
However many excuses you come up with to rob the rich because "you know better than they how it should be spent" (Obama's words) it still doesn't excuse that you are stealing what they own for your own purposes, and whether you, I or anyone else think those purposes are "good" is irrelevant. A clear violation of ethics and morals, yet one that is integral to socialism.Wilderness, to start with you are confusing Socialism with Communism (as so many Americans often do).
Secondly, everyone (except the lowest paid) has to pay taxes; and taxing the less well of at the same percentage rate as the highest rate e.g. taxing everyone at 20% of income regardless to how much or how little they earn, is a regressive tax; and as such is unethical and immoral because it puts a far the greater tax burden on those who can least afford it.
Whereas a progressive tax on income is far more moral and ethical.
If the tax system in what you think of as ‘Socialist Britain’, with its generous welfare system (compared to the USA), is so unjust for the super-rich as you seem to think it is, then why does Britain attract so many billionaires; as shown in this video: -
Billionaire Britain: the new super rich: https://youtu.be/OuO1-xVpo9o"Whereas a progressive tax on income is far more moral and ethical."
That's what I said, isn't it? Not only will the rich pay 100X as much as the poor with a flat tax, but that isn't enough; the rest of their belongings must be taken as well. And this is "ethical", at least in your mind - because someone has more than you, you have decided that what they have worked for, earned and own actually belongs to you because your cause is just. At least in your mind - in the minds of those you steal from it may not be, but then you have the power to legally steal to pay for your wants. You have the guns, so you must have the ethics as well.
As I said, I disagree. While I believe a good case can be made for taxing the rich more than anyone else to satisfy the needs of the country when you decide you will take from them to satisfy the needs of individuals you can't make any case at all. It is wrong, and to say that the poor want more than they can afford doesn't make it right. Nor does the fact that I believe that ethically they have the responsibility to provide for the needs of those that can't do it themselves - what I think of the ethics of the rich doesn't give you the right to take whatever you like from them.
(I know the strict definition of socialism does not equate to "from everyone what they can give, to everyone according to their needs", but it is becoming more and more common to treat it that way. The definition is slowly changing)We need to start teaching students in our public and privet schools again what the mission (in fact) of the United States is. The Preamble to the Constitution. I don't know if its even printed in textbooks these days.
what do they think the preamble says?
We the people have the right to bully anyone who does not measure up or who is politically incorrect.
the right to demand self-satisfaction in all instances.
the right to get whatever we can from the government.
the right to work only if we feel like it.
the right to kill the embryos and fetuses we are not willing to take care of.
the right to expect others to fund whatever we can't afford, such as health insurance, food, medicines and housing.
some might think I sound childish/inaccurate in this supposition ...
Am I?
Wilderness, because the taxes on income in the UK is progressive (and stepped) the superrich doesn’t pay as much as you might think; it does even out quite equitably. The superrich pay no more tax on the first £150,000 ($200,000) than anyone else; and the first £11,500 of their earnings is tax free anyway. It’s only over the £150,000 that extra tax is paid; so statistically, the average superrich person in the UK only pays 27.5% tax on their total income, which I think is favourable compared to what everyone else pays.
There is also the other aspect that by giving the less well-off financial support it increases their ‘disposable income’, which invariably gets spent to the benefit of the economy (economics) e.g. if the poor has money to buy food and a few small luxury items in the local shops it helps to increase demand (supply and demand in economics), increases turnover for the shop, allows them to employ more staff, who in turn then pays taxes etc.
Whereas if you starve the poor of support, they can’t afford to spend and the whole economy then suffers; as seems to be the case in America.
I don’t know why you are so defensive of the superrich; I’m sure they don’t care if you starve or if you die because you can’t afford your medical bill. And before you ask, although I do feel for the poor, I am technically classified as lower middle class; albeit I prefer to think of myself as upper working class. And, until I took early retirement I was in full time employment for every working day from the time I left school. So for the whole of my working life I’ve paid my taxes in full, and have never required any welfare benefits from the State.
Finally, a short video of the ‘Day in the Life of Sir Richard Branson’; a self-made British multi-billionaire (the 25th richest person in the UK), and one billionaire I have a lot of respect for: https://youtu.be/oRqhoy4AVIMI pay $5 for my hamburger and you (the rich) pay $5,000 for the exact same hamburger. And that is "even out and equitable". We have very differing opinions of what "even out" and "equitable" means. Unless you are saying that the 27.5% the rich pays (I don't believe that for a moment) is less than what the poor pays, it isn't "favorable".
Are you insinuating that the rich take their "extra" money and hide it under the mattress? That it is not put to use, either in purchasing or investing in business? Seems to me that whether rich or poor, that money isn't floating in la la land - it is being used in the economy.
It's not so much defensive of the superrich; it's fighting the notion that because your cause is just, in your opinion, you have an ethical right to forcibly take what someone else owns. We pride ourselves today on morality and ethics, yet we continually push to demand that some of our society give up what they have because...well, because we want it for our own use!Wilderness, the British tax system is complex, but yes the 27.5% is correct for 2016 (in 2011 it was 24.7%). Attached below is an image from 2011 data which shows what income tax at that time was for the 5 Quintiles. To help simplify complex data Quintiles are often used e.g. the population split into five groups according to their wealth and income.
Income Tax as a Percentage of Gross Income
• Bottom Quintile = 10.2%
• 2nd Quintile = 11.2%
• 3rd Quintile = 15.9%
• 4th Quintile = 20.5%
• Top Quintile = 24.7%
The figures above appear much lower than you might think it would be because the tax on income is progressive and stepped. So although the wealthy pay a lot more tax on what they earn above £150,000 they pay a lot less on the first £150,000 they earn.
However, once you add direct taxes to the mix e.g. tax on goods and services; which is a regressive tax then because the poor pay a far high percentage of their income on direct taxes than the rich the overall tax everyone pays (direct and indirect) levels out. This being because a higher percentage of income by the low paid in economic terms is ‘disposable income’ e.g. they spend every penny they get rather than save it; whereas in contrast the rich spend proportionally a smaller percentage of their income (disposable income, which is subject to direct taxes) as the richer they are the higher the percentage of their income goes in savings.
Total of all Taxes paid (Direct and Indirect) on earned income and disposable income, by Quintile in 2011
• Bottom Quintile (the poorest) = 36.6%
• 2nd Quintile = 31%
• 3rd Quintile = 33.1%
• 4th Quintile = 34.9%
• Top Quintile (the richest) = 35.5%
If you want detailed data I suggest you visit the ‘Office for National Statistics’ https://www.ons.gov.uk/
The Office for National Statistics is an ‘Independent’ government department e.g. it’s answerable to Parliament, not the Government; therefore its statistics can be trusted for not being politically biased.
If you understood economics more you might appreciate the significance of ‘disposable income’ a little better. In economics it’s a well-known fact that if you give a poor person an extra $5 they will spend the whole of that $5 (which benefits the economy). Whereas, if you give an extra $5 to a wealthy person they’ll be more inclined to just put it in the bank to earn interest, which although has some benefit to the economy doesn’t have a direct impact on supply and demand; and therefore doesn’t stimulate economic growth as effectively. That’s why the British government prefer people to spend money in the highstreets rather than save in order to boost economic growth.
Future Bright for UK High Street https://youtu.be/KgVQ5XGiK7I
And before you comment, I would like to mention that I did macro and micro economics at college as part of my two year course in Business Administration qualification; which I passed with honours in the final exams. And my wife also studied macro and micro economics at university as part of her three year degree course; which she passed as a Bachelor of Arts with Honours.
Also, if Socialism is as immoral as you suggest then why do British self-made multi-billionaires like Sir Richard Branson and Lord Alan Sugar so socialist minded e.g. why was Lord Alan Sugar a Socialist Labour Peer for so many years, and not supporting the (Capitalist) Conservatives; as shown in this video: - https://youtu.be/M8bEkdvPDXM
Wilderness, Sir Richard Branson, self-made British multi-billionaire is according to the latest ‘Forbes Profile’ for 2017 now the 7th richest person in the UK and the 324th richest in the world.
You might like to listen to his views on ‘work culture’ in this short video; which in spite of his wealth is very British: https://youtu.be/V67nDvfNQV0
Who is talking about socialism? After WW2, capitalism and western democracy demonstrated, for the first time really, that they could really deliver for ordinary people.
But the victories of those decades have slowly been eroded and people born now are likely to be worse off than their fathers and grandfathers.
And it all comes down to the capacity of the wealthy to suck up more and more of a country's resources. This has been much studied and it is absolutely obvious to anyone willing to look.
But forget the studies. You can see it in the increasing desperation and rage of ordinary people, especially Americans. Why vote for a Trump if you not very, very angry?
And the anger is understandable. Life gets harder and more insecure every year.
Not only that, social mobility in the US is constantly declining (worse than the UK and Canada even, far worse than more liberal European countries) so you cannot even console yourself with the delusion that 'anyone can be a billionaire'.
None of this would have been possible without a series of big lies:
Trickle down economics as justification for tax cuts. No one has demonstrated that tax cuts boost an economy except in very rare and special circumstances.
People organizing in democratic ways to make sure their voice is heard is evil (unions, protests)
Supply side economics (driving wages/costs down) will boost economies. The cost of important stuff never downs down.
Mommy and Daddy rich guy have your interests at heart. Sadly, the more deferential and accommodating you are, the worse the deal you will get.
And now we are back to that old favorite of desperate regimes: Nationalism. Foreigners are the root cause of all evil. Jews, Slavs, Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims... any group will do.
I really shouldn't care I suppose. The gullibility of my fellow humans is hardly my responsibly, lol.
Will, I spotted your reply just after I posted mine. Although I gave a more positive response, I fully concur with your statements. My reply is more positive in that I tried to keep politics out of it and looked at the UK tax system in principle, rather than what the Tory’s do e.g. when the Tory’s (and New Labour to a lesser extent) are in power then taxes are reduced for the super-rich at the expense of the poorest in society.
Colorfulone, accepting that no tax system is perfect, then yes in my opinion taxes on wages in the UK are fair for everyone.
Specifically because they are progressive taxes, and there are two taxes on wages that run in tandem (Income Tax and National Insurance) that together while they ensure the wealthiest take the biggest tax burden also ensures the wealthiest only make marginal contributions towards social welfare e.g. State Pensions.
Consequently, having two different types of taxes on your wages that are paid together makes taxes on wages in the UK complex (too complex for me to explain in detail here); but generally the low paid don’t pay any taxes on their income e.g. those earning less than £11,500 ($15,000), and although everyone else might pay more in taxes in the UK than the USA the social benefits to all (including the wealthy) more than makes up for any additional taxes we might pay e.g. the NHS, Child Benefit, State Pensions and PIP (Personal Independence Payment) for disabled people etc., are not generally means tested so most everyone benefits; especially the NHS which is free to all at the point of use regardless to their social status or wealth. Therefore, generally most people have a good or descent standard of living, and sufficient disposable income for holidays and mod cons for the home etc.
For example, most people in the UK have two annual holidays a year; which they couldn’t do if the tax system was burdening. I and my wife for example, with me having taken early retirement my only income is my works pension and the carers allowance I get because of my wife’s medically diagnosed bad back, and my wife’s only income is from her part time employment (3 days a week) and her PIP income because of her bad back. Yet, we can still afford two weeks holiday in France and Belgium each summer, and a further weeks holiday somewhere in the UK.
These two videos will probably explain some of this better than I can: -
How to calculate your Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions: https://youtu.be/P5PJukoyVTs
UK Tax System Explained With Pie: https://youtu.be/zHNosFrBHeIInteresting. What social benefits are paid to the wealthy in the UK?
Wilderness, non-means tested (which means everyone is entitled to them) social benefits that even the wealthy are entitled to in the UK include:-
• PIP (Personal Independent Payment)
• Child Benefit.
• State Pension.
• Free NHS (National Health Service).
• Free Education until the age of 19.
• Free Bus travel from the age of 66.
PIP is a benefit for disable people, and for those on the higher rate e.g. more severely disabled, then they can also qualify for the Motability Scheme where they’re entitled to a free new car fully taxed and insured. As explained in this short video:- https://youtu.be/8KMTi8oPL9w
After doing some extensive research (as tax and benefits is a complex subject in the UK) the breakeven point e.g. the point up to which typically the average person in the UK gets more social benefit from the tax system than they pay in (taking into account all social benefits and not just welfare) is about £38,800 ($50,000). But even then the rich and super rich still get something from the system, it’s not all take and no give; as listed above.
How the Other Half Live was a British TV series where each week a wealthy family would sponsor a poor family, a short clip which shows the two extremes of social class in the UK from one of the episodes can be seen in this video: https://youtu.be/P_ylCVzWO1A*Shudder* This whole "share the wealth" is just foreign to the ideals that made America. I realize it has been going on for centuries in the UK, but until recently Americans simply did not recognize stealing from one to give it to another as a good thing. Although we've always had charitable programs, we only began to force certain groups of people to foot the bills for others recently
Hello again nathanville, I would like to offer an American's perspective on part of the last part of your comment.
" I and my wife for example, with me having taken early retirement my only income is my works pension and the carers allowance I get because of my wife’s medically diagnosed bad back, and my wife’s only income is from her part time employment (3 days a week) and her PIP income because of her bad back. Yet, we can still afford two weeks holiday in France and Belgium each summer, and a further weeks holiday somewhere in the UK."
I don't want to sound insensitive, or address any personal aspects, so I will just use the maximum "carer's Allowance, and PIP allowance numbers that I found online.
You, (let's call this a generic "you"), get a pension, your wife, (and a generic wife), is able to work, (even if only part-time), yet you could possibly still draw up to 200 pounds, ($260.00), per week, (carer's allowance and PIP, and possibly pension credits and housing allowance.
No wonder you can afford three weeks vacation per year.
Of course that example is simplistic, and only intended to address the concept of your statement - not you or your personal circumstances, and I am aware that a possibly similar analogy might be drawn to our system of Social Security Disability Insurance, (SSDI), but it doesn't sound like it would really be comparable.
Just an under-informed perspective, but that is how it looks to this American.
GAHi GA, good to hear from you. No you’re not being insensitive or personal by any means. You’re debating very sensibly on a cultural point from an American perspective; which I respect.
If my wife was severely disabled to the point where she could only get about by car e.g. get to work by car then she would be on the enhanced rate of PIP and get the enhanced Mobility (which would include a free car with car tax and insurance also paid for). In that case between us it would be the $260 per week you quoted.
However, my wife’s condition isn’t that debilitating so she only gets the basic PIP of £55.65 per week. Plus, because they are taxable and our income is over the tax threshold e.g. the point at which we start paying tax, then between us we do pay about £6 tax a week on those benefits.
In my case, the carers allowance is means tested, so if I was working and earned more than £221 per week I wouldn’t get the carer’s allowance. However, although my works pension is taxable, pensions are not included in the means testing for the carer’s allowance. So the fact that I get a pension doesn’t affect my entitlement to the carer’s allowance. The key issue in my case, to qualify for the carer’s allowance, is that I have to look after my wife for more than 35 hours per week; which I do as I am now the househusband.
In contrast, PIP is not means tested, so even the wealthy would be entitled to it if they wanted to claim, although in practice I doubt few would bother.
We don’t get housing allowance because we own our house; I paid the last of the mortgage shortly after I took early retirement so we now fully own our home. Besides only those with an income (including pension) of less than £11,500 per year and who rent accommodation would be entitled to housing allowance.
If you’re paying a mortgage then it’s your responsibility to keep up the payments to pay off the capital, even if you’re unemployed. Although under those circumstances the Government would usually pay the ‘interest only’ (none of the capital) so that you don’t lose your house and become homeless; but ultimately you would need to get a job in order to pay the full mortgage to avoid having to eventually sale it to pay off your mortgage debt.
I have worked all my life (paying my taxes) from the age of 16, so yes I do have my pension credits fully paid for; which means that when I reach the age of 66 I will also be entitled to the full State Pension.
I fully agree with you, we don’t financially need the extra £118 per week we get between us for the PIP and carer’s allowance to survive; it’s PIN money. In my case I use it for DIY, in my wife’s case she’s investing the extra money so that she can work towards taking early retirement.
The extra money we get from PIP and the carer’s allowance has nothing to do with our ability to afford three weeks’ vacation per year. My wife only started receiving the PIP a year ago; where as we’ve always taken three weeks’ vacation per year ever since we were first married life. Even since 2011, when I took early retirement and my wife switched to part-time working (so that she could spend more time at home with me), although our only joint income for those five years was just my pension and what she earned part time, we’ve still been able to afford to have our three weeks’ vacation each year.
I’m fully aware that to an American all this may seem strange, and the likes of some (Americans) call if theft from the rich, but it’s perfectly natural to the European culture to the point that even the wealthy Europeans don’t consider it theft from them; and they benefit from the system as well e.g. a billionaire in Britain gets free healthcare (NHS) and State Pension etc. just like everybody else.
It just demonstrates the divergence of American and European Culture.
In fact (although personally I don’t like him) Lord Alan Sugar, a self-made British multi-Billionaire was a Labour (Socialist) Peer for many years, as shown in this video: https://youtu.be/hUd7fJFiXd4
My favourite British self-made multi-billionaire, Sir Richard Branson, is also very socialist in his views, as shown here: - Sir Richard Branson’s own words: “Put Your Staff 1st, Customers 2nd, and Shareholders 3rd” https://youtu.be/NPiCYoX-S_IWhile I appreciate your explanation of your circumstances nathanville, it was the finish of your comment that was my original point. It is a cultural difference in perspective.
I was not thinking of the credibility of the entitlement to those benefits, or even the thought of it being a case of 'taking from the rich' to pass around to others.
When I think of benefits for a caregiver, it is the sense of taking care of an invalid-type person. Addressing your explained circumstances as a generic example, your wife is not an invalid unable to do for herself, (of course that isn't an implication that you don't supply care for your wife in any ways), so my American view is that a similar case here... shouldn't qualify for your Carer's allowance. Although, as I mentioned our SSDI program, I could see it as being comparable to your wife's PIP.
Those benefits are not free. Your taxes pay for them. Your, (British citizen), perspective is that you are ok with that. Even knowing that your taxes could be lower without examples such as yours.
My American perspective is not ok with it. If my taxes must support such programs - I want them to be entirely need-based, not universally applied.
As a note; What little I do know about Mr. Branson leaves me very impressed with his perspectives. But I do not have the impression that his are great philanthropic efforts to aid the "downtrodden." My impression is that his perspectives derive from an understanding of the 'rightness' of treating people as people, and not as tools or means.
GAHI GA, thanks for your American perspective. Yes I get the distinct impression that Americans prefer a Laissez-faire Government; whereas in Britain people do want Governments to have a greater control, more of a ‘mixed’ economy between Private and Public.
Yep, nothing is ‘free’, it all has to be paid for by taxes, but there is greater wiliness in Britain to pay more taxes for the extra benefits it brings, for example:-
• Free Health Service for All, at the point of use; the NHS.
• Free Education to ‘All’ under the age of 19.
• State Pension for all of those who have worked most of their life.
• Child Benefit for every child, paid to every mother.
• Winter Fuel Payments to all on State Pension, and Cold Weather Payment for anyone on benefit.
• Free bus travel to all over the age of 66.
• Christmas Bonus to anyone on benefit.
It is a mixed bag of benefits e.g. welfare benefits specific for the low paid and unemployed and social benefits for everyone else. The above is just a few examples from a long list of benefits people can get. I think the big difference between the American and British (European) ethos (which you pointed out) is that Americans feel benefits should only go to the most needy so as to keep taxes low.
Whereas in Britain and across Europe, the Middle Class (like me) and even the Upper Classes get some social benefits from their taxes e.g. everyone (regardless to their wealth) are entitled to all of the above listed, except for the Cold Weather Payment and Christmas Bonus which are predominantly for those on welfare benefit.
I think in Britain the willingness for people to pay extra taxes for welfare and social benefits is largely due to the fact that even the middle classes share in some of the social benefits e.g. Free Health, Free Education, State Pension, Child Benefit etc., and if they have the miss fortune of falling on hard times they know that the State is there to support them until they get back onto their feet. I think in the minds of Europeans its seen more as an insurance policy rather than a tax in that everyone pays in equitably when they’re working, and when they need help e.g. Healthcare, then the help is there free at the point of use.
Below is a list compiled by the BBC, which is constant with data I’ve seen on the official websites and other reliable sources but which is greatly simplified. The list shows what someone like me e.g. lower middle class, pays each year in their taxes and what it pays for. It’s not far off from the amount of tax I was paying when I was working e.g. about £5,000 per year:-
Breakdown of what Government Expenditure is paid for, from the taxes paid in a year on the income of an average lower middle class worker:-
• £2,080 ($2696) on State Pensions.
• £1,094 ($1418) on the NHS.
• £824 ($1,068) on Education.
• £508 ($659) on Welfare Benefits.
• £339 ($439) on Defence
• £160 ($207) on the Police
• £92 ($119) on Roads
• £71 ($92) on Railways
• £44 ($57) Others
In my case, for the 40 years I worked I was paying less than $1,500 per year (in today’s money) towards the cost of the NHS through my income taxes. So for me, I’d much rather pay for the cost of the health Service through my taxes than worry about the cost of health insurance or medical bills. Also, because the cost of the NHS is paid for through taxes everyone (including the super-rich) and the unemployed and retired people are all entitled to the same level of healthcare regardless to their income or wealth.
I know Americans think the British welfare system is bizarre; and in that respect you probably think the Christmas Bonus (mentioned in the list at the top) is an unnecessary and frivolous benefit. You might be right but I think it’s very British e.g. each December, in the run up to Christmas the Government gives everyone on welfare benefit, and a number of social benefits including PIP and the carer’s allowance, a one-off £10 ($13) bonus for Christmas. Surprisingly it wasn’t introduced by the socialist Labour government (as so many of our benefits are) but was first introduced by a Conservative (Capitalist) Government back in 1972.
As far as multi-billionaires go, Sir Richard Branson is my idle; I am a loyal customer of his and use his services for cable TV, the Internet and telephone landline rather than Rupert Murdock’s SKY package, or any of the other competitors.
This video of Sir Richard Branson’s work ethics gives more insight into the sort of person he is (as you indicated, a very people's person): https://youtu.be/AMsZdZjP4-c
GA, for clarification; a point which most Americans seem to miss. The taxes on income in the UK are complex because instead of just having one simple progressive and stepped income tax, in the UK we have two different types of taxes on income that everyone pays.
The purpose of having two taxes is to try to put the greater burden of tax for the purpose of welfare on those who would most benefit from it e.g. the middle class and low paid. This part of the income tax is called NIC (National Insurance Contributions) and is applied at 12% on the low paid and middle classes, but at only 2% on income of the wealthy earners e.g. those earning more than £150,000 per year.
So although the super-rich may pay more in Income Tax, they pay a lot less as a percentage on their NIC contributions. The income tax they pay for is revenue to the Government that pays for roads, defence and education etc. The NIC element of the income tax is meant to cover things like State Pension, the NHS and Social Welfare etc., which the middle classes and the poor most benefit from; albeit the superrich also get State Pension and the NHS (Health) is free to them at the point of use as it is for everyone else.
This short video fully explains: https://youtu.be/s2PMKEDSPVQ
People without health insurance have a 40% higher death rate.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 … -coverage/
And yes, Trump's next victory will be his goal of killing the American AMT tax, which will allow him to pocket tens of millions of dollars more every year.
It hasn't gone to the Senate yet, so at this moment no laws have been changed. If it does pass the Senate, it will likely result in:
24 million more people uninsured
Increased premiums in the short term
less incentive for comparatively healthy people to sign up for health insurance
insurers being able to charge five times more for older enrollees
Medicaid being stripped of funding (to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy)
insurers being able to charge higher premiums for people with existing medical conditions, under certain circumstances
In what way would that be a victory?Because it is sustainable? That would be a huge victory over what we have now, where we pay huge premiums for plans that we can't afford to use and that we won't have for more than a few years anyway, until the country goes bankrupt trying to give what it can't afford.
I'd think that anyone that actually thinks about it rather than promoting an emotional response to a financial problem wouldn't have to ask how it would be a victory.Medicaid is not being gutted to make healthcare sustainable. It's being gutted to fund tax breaks for the extremely wealthy. That's a victory for people whose income is over $250,000 per year. Not such a victory for the majority of working people (including those who voted for Trump in the first place).
And yes, I expect people to react on an emotional level when their health care is jeopardized because the president wants to give tax cuts to his wealthy friends. Also, based on what we saw in local town hall meetings this year, I expect that the majority of people (including Trump supporters) will not see this as victory, but a betrayal. You and the Republican party have until 2018 to convince them otherwise. Good luck with that.But you are assuming that those rich people don't own that money. In truth the "victory" is in keeping what they own - not so much of a victory!
Same with those tax cuts: that those people are able to keep their belongings out of the greedy clutches of those that want what they cannot afford isn't the "victory" you're trying to insinuate.By continuing to be part of society, extremely wealthy people are consenting to make a direct financial contribution to society (represented by government). That contribution is part of the social contract that comes with citizenship.
They are free to renounce their citizenship and live somewhere else, which would effectively end the social contract between them and society. If not, then they must abide by the rules that govern society.
Unfortunately some extremely wealthy people want all the freedoms, protections and opportunities that living, working and doing business in society provides, but at the same time are trying to change the rules so they have to pay less of a direct contribution.
Everyone in society has the right to try to change the rules that govern society. Unfortunately wealthy people have an unfair advantage because in modern society money equates to political influence. So the more money you have, the more influence you have, and the louder voice you have.
The result is what we see now. The rules are being changed so less is paid as a direct contribution to society by the extremely wealthy, at the expense of health care programs that mainly help the extremely poor.
That is not happening because it is right, or because it makes the most sense. It is happening because the voices of the extremely wealthy are louder than the voices of the extremely poor, and because Donald Trump also happens to be one of the extremely wealthy who wants to pay less.
That's not a victory. It's a travesty.
The American Health Care Act reduces taxes by $1 Trillion which reduces the taxes on Americans.
-Abolishes the Obamacare Individual Mandate Tax which hits 8 million Americans each year.
-Abolishes the Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax. Together with repeal of the Individual Mandate Tax repeal this is a $270 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Medicine Cabinet Tax which hits 20 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts and 30 million Americans with Flexible Spending Accounts. This is a $6 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Flexible Spending Account tax on 30 million Americans. This is a $20 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Chronic Care Tax on 10 million Americans with high out of pocket medical expenses. This is a $126 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s HSA withdrawal tax. This is a $100 million tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s 10% excise tax on small businesses with indoor tanning services. This is a $600 million tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare health insurance tax. This is a $145 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income. This is a $172 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare medical device tax. This is a $20 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on prescription medicine. This is a $28 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on retiree prescription drug coverage. This is a $2 billion tax cut.
Shows me that the Republicans can govern on President Trump's campaign promise to cut taxes while skinning the Obamacare cat. Its brilliant! This is what Trump meant when he said, "We want a very big tax cut, but cannot do that until we keep our promise to repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare."
Added: "Based on information from a variety of government and private sources, CBO estimates that Planned Parenthood receives approximately $450 million annually in federal funds," the CBO said.
"Of that amount, roughly $390 million is provided through the Medicaid program and less than $1 million is provided through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Medicare program combined," said CBO. "The remaining amount, approximately $60 million, is provided through the National Family Planning Program, which operates under Title X of the Public Health Service Act (commonly referred to as Title X). Funding for that latter program is subject to appropriation."
The de-funding for the Elephant has been addressed in the bill. Oh, I guess its another cat skinned.Yes, but which Americans?
A hundred dollar a year cut in taxes is no consolation for the poor who will lose all kinds of services not just healthcare.
And do the billionaires really need another million dollars a year?
A few of the things you will lose, so the rich can be richer:
The National Institutes of Health, is getting a budget cut of 18 percent. Your nation will get sicker.
The Environmental Protection Agency loses 31 percent. You will get sicker
The Department of Housing and Urban Development loses 13 percent. Evictions and homeless will rise
The Department of Agriculture loses 21 percent. But who needs to eat?National Institutes of Health will get a $2 billion funding boost. I hope the wasteful spending and incompetence is done away with.
Environmental Protection Agency's wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars needs to get clipped. The EPA's mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuses have been investigated, ongoing. They haven't kept good records either. Lots of corruption and incompetence there.
Department of Housing and Urban Development - Ben Carson found more than $500 billion in accounting errors after he took over as director. Lots of corruption and fraud there.
Department of Agriculture's corruption and wastefulness needs to end also. We have a bunch of fat cats getting fatter off the American taxpayers. A lot of people would like the see the department shut down, you can read about the corruption.
President Trump has inherited a mess. I don't like the corruption and am glad there are people who are working hard to clean up the mess. The incompetent corrupt opposition is scared and should be. Can Trump totally clean up the corruption? I doubt it, because the corrupt politicians and corrupt bureaucrats won't let him. Its very disgusting on the corruption and incompetent levels.
Maybe a good government shut down could bring some common sense back to DC. No money, no funny. (Can we try to stay on topic a little better, without throwing everything into the mix?)
So no reliable source in all of internetland had anything negative to say about any of these tax cuts? You couldn't find a single valid criticism of them anywhere on the web? Go on, I bet you could if you really tried.
We will have to wait and see what gets hammered out. I don't see your negative ideas of a likely scenario happening though. In fact, I see the opposite will develop to the positive. Keep the faith, at least its on the planning table!
Yes, it is another major - and temporary and rushed and ultimately expensive - Trump almost-victory. It still has to pass through the rest of Congress; and the 'ultimately expensive' part is us re-repealing this new anti-healthcare act in a few years. Neat. Why is healthcare one of our biggest dividing issues? Did you HEAR what Trump SAID about Australia's healthcare system? He's so damn clueless and so are his anti-healthcare supporters.
I like the first one - if liberals can't force others to pay for what we want but cannot afford it means we're going broke. Whatever happened to responsibility for ourselves - how did we get to the point that we require someone else to provide for our wants and call it a "right" as we do it?
Proving for WANTS?! It is only a matter of 'right' or 'wrong' among conservatives who see it as paying for the laziness or incompetency of others - when that isn't always the case.
How to you explain away Trump's comments about Australia's healthcare system? It almost sounds to me like he read up on it on his way to this meeting and decided it sounded pretty good. That would not surprise me.
There are very good reasons why most major countries now have healthcare policies for the masses - cuz its CHEAPER in the end being one of them.
The GOP could have done the responsible thing and 'fixed' what we already had instead of insulting the majority of the American people the way they are. We can READ. We can see the benefits in other countries; and we are clueless as to why GOP insist on clinging to their ignorance.
But it's not about laziness or incompetency of others - it's about forcible taking what you want but cannot afford. A far different thing, but somehow the liberals of the country deny even discussion of the morality of the act.
I could be mistaken, but believe Australia has a one payer system; the government pays for all health care. No insurance involved. And, given that we wish to provide care for all citizens, that's a far better system than giving 10% or more to insurance companies while (in theory) providing care with the rest. Trump is correct in that regard, and doubly so in that ObamaCare paid the insurance companies to provide an insurance plan that denied the poor any care at all."But it's not about laziness or incompetency of others - it's about forcible taking what you want but cannot afford."
Healthcare policy is meant similar to the way we require people to have car insurance whether they can afford it, or not. If they don't have it, they get fined. Healthcare is being looked at the same way by those of us who can see the sensibility behind it. And besides, if you can't afford it - you don't pay for it. Under Ocare, its FREE. If you're someone who just doesn't WANT to carry it cuz you've got better things you want to spend your money on - screw you, buy HI so the American people aren't paying for your car accident, later.
"A far different thing, but somehow the liberals of the country deny even discussion of the morality of the act."
What the heck are we doing, now?
"I could be mistaken, but believe Australia has a one payer system; the government pays for all health care. No insurance involved. And, given that we wish to provide care for all citizens, that's a far better system than giving 10% or more to insurance companies while (in theory) providing care with the rest. Trump is correct in that regard, and doubly so in that ObamaCare paid the insurance companies to provide an insurance plan that denied the poor any care at all."
Aside from that last ignorant sentence, this is really an enlightened perspective - especially for a conservative GOP, if that's what you are. Do you understand that the Dems have always wanted - and it is what Bernie was running on - a 100% FREE-for-the-people healthcare system along with free college?
Obamacare was the FREAKIN COMPROMISE between the two extremes of THAT and NO healthcare like the GOP want!! Obamacare is as bad as it is as much because of GOP as because of Dems.
We're not going anywhere on healthcare until both sides understand that. At the moment, only moderates are capable of grasping that wild & crazy concept. It really sucks to high heaven to be in the middle between two EQUALLY ridiculous sides!"Forcibly taking what you want? How?"
Fail to pay your taxes - whether minimal or in the millions - and you will quickly find out how.
"Under Ocare <health insurance>, its FREE."
If so, the insurance company has no costs associated with your insurance, which in turn means the doctors don't charge, hospitals have no employees, etc. No, it definitely isn't free - we just force someone else to pay for it, that's all.
"What the heck are we doing, now?" <Discussing the morality of legally stealing from those that have more than we think they should have>
I'm trying, but you're just claiming that health care is, or should be, free, while pretending that if someone else pays for it that it is then free. It isn't, of course; the bills must be paid by someone and that means dollars exchanged.
"Aside from that last ignorant sentence <that the poor get insurance they can't use>"
Sorry, but I got some of that insurance. deductibles of $12,000 for my wife and I, which effectively made them unusable as I don't have $12,000 per year to put into health care. Not ignorant, then, but from direct, personal experience.
"a 100% FREE-for-the-people healthcare system along with free college"
And there we go again with that "free" healthcare that is only "free" because you aren't paying for it. Instead you will force someone else to foot the bill, whereupon it isn't "free" at all.
Yes, it sucks to be in the middle, seeing and experiencing just how poor the design of the system is. We simply have to get off the fence and decide if we're going to force charitable donations onto the rich, paying for health care for other people, or let it go. Forcing them to not only pay for other's healthcare but also an unusable insurance plan is insane. (Which is probably a pretty good description of how our government works today, with violently partisan lawmakers that are incapable of compromising with each other.)You keep repeating this idea about taxes. I don't know if you saw my previous response to this idea, but my thinking is essentially this:
If people choose to keep their US citizenship then, in exchange for the protections, freedoms and opportunities that brings, they must abide by the rules of society, which includes the requirement to pay taxes.
That requirement (and the government's authority to enforce it) exists only because society has consented to taxation being a condition of living in society, i.e. part of the social contract that comes with citizenship.
The government does not (and cannot) force anyone to remain a US citizen. People can, if they choose, renounce their citizenship and go somewhere taxation is not a requirement of living in society (here is a list of countries by income tax rates if you're interested).
So I think playing taxes is less like being robbed at gunpoint by the government, and more like abiding by the terms of a contract that you have implicitly accepted by retaining your citizenship.
Like any other contract, people are entitled to try to change the terms if they want to. In this case that would mean campaigning for lower taxes etc, but they still have to abide by the rules while they're doing that.
From a moral perspective, I think people are on shaky ground if they have benefitted from living in society, but don't want to make a direct financial contribution to that society, even though they have the means to.
That's seems to be the position of people like Donald Trump. They aren't saying they want their tax dollars to be used more effectively or more efficiently. They are saying they want to pay less, even though they have the means to pay more, and they are getting what they want, not because it's right, but because money equates to political influence, and they happen to have lots of money.
"another major Trump victory"? What have been the others - or even one? A supreme court justice who changes nothing. What else?
President Trump has signed 13 Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions in his first 100 days, more than any other President. These resolutions nullified unnecessary regulations and block agencies from reissuing them.
Since CRA resolutions were introduced under President Clinton, they’ve been used only once, under President George W. Bush.
The Wall Street Journal editorial: “So far the Trump Administration is a welcome improvement, rolling back more regulations than any President in history.”
President Trump signed 30 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Trump has worked with Congress to enact 28 laws during the first 100 days of his Administration.
You can find more information on the White House website because of President Trump's historic victory.
BTW, Neil Gorsuch is proving to be exemplary.He signed a lot of empty executive orders in front of photographers.
Executive Order on May 04, 2017
Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty
Executive Order on May 01, 2017
Presidential Executive Order on the Establishment of the American Technology Council
Executive Order on April 29, 2017
Presidential Executive Order Addressing Trade Agreement Violations and Abuses
Executive Order on April 29, 2017
Presidential Executive Order on Establishment of Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy
Executive Order on April 28, 2017
Presidential Executive Order Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy
Executive Order on April 27, 2017
Presidential Executive Order on Improving Accountability and Whistleblower Protection at the Department of Veterans Affairs
Executive Order on April 26, 2017
Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Statutory Prohibitions on Federal Control of Education
Executive Order on April 26, 2017
Presidential Executive Order on the Review of Designations Under the Antiquities Act
Executive Order on April 25, 2017
Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Agriculture and Rural Prosperity in America
Executive Order on April 21, 2017
Presidential Executive Order on Identifying and Reducing Tax Regulatory Burdens
That's just page one of four EOs. None are empty.
* https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … ive-orders
I don't get why all presidents give away the pen after signing each EO, (they all get their picture taken with whomever is their to witness the signing).I understand he signed executive orders. But they have little impact on the country.
The flood of illegals crossing the border has slowed considerably. That's not a "little impact".
Texas has passed a law against sanctuary cities as a result of his orders. That's not a "little impact", either.You're right, Trump has had an impact:
Increase in violence in cities like Seattle as a result of the increase in emboldened hate.
Increase in ugly divisive behavior between citizens who disagree with each other by heaps & bounds.
We may have less immigrants sneaking in, but our own citizens are turning against each other.
Passing laws against sanctuary cities isn't a good thing. Its more hate formed into a law.
Repealing business & banking regulations that were put in place to prevent the last financial fiasco from happening again. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … ation-view
Repealing regulations for environmental protections so that businesses can rape the planet for their very important profits (as opposed to insisting on green energy) - sorry, that isn't going over well.
Ridiculous spending on things they KNOW we will be 'reversing' in a few years - really uncool.
Insulting the American people with the rushed & forceful way they are handling something as delicate as an Ocare 'replace'.
None of these things are good, but yeah - they are having an impact. Trump's fans may be happy, but that isn't saying much good about them when they consider absolutely everything he does to be brilliant. It has been an amazing 'impact' and not in a good way.
Thank God for the French!!! LoL!You're blaming Trump because liberals cannot accept that they no longer control the White House and take it out on everyone that voted for Trump?!? Doesn't sound reasonable to me...
Laws against sanctuary cities is absolutely a good thing. For government to shield law breakers and hide them from the law is not good and must be halted. We are either a nation of laws or we are not; sanctuary cities are declaring that the only laws that they will enforce are the ones they like, and that is unacceptable.
Ridiculous spending - you mean like padding the pockets of insurance companies by forcing young health people to buy over priced insurance? You really think liberals aren't smart enough to accept that such things are not good for the people OR the country? Perhaps you're right.
You mean as in insulting people ("enact ObamaCare and then you can read it and see what's you just voted for") over ObamaCare?
It doesn't say much for liberals that they refuse to see good in anything Trump has done. Like starting the fight against sanctuary cities or instituting policies that reduce illegal border crossings. Or perhaps it does, but it doesn't say anything good about them.
(After the past few months watching the reaction in other countries, I'll go out on a limb and predict that we'll see more people overseas stepping up to the plant and claim responsibility for themselves, ending the perpetual growth of socialism in other countries.)France was expected to continue the right-wing populist swipe across the planet - especially after Trump won. People were sure the rest of the world would fall. But, there is obviously a glimmer of hope.
I understand that you erroneously insist on calling everyone you doesn't agree with your outrageous claims a liberal. I've countered that so many times with you, its ridiculous. I'm not a liberal - I'm a middle-of-the-road MODERATE. Do you even know what that is?
Obama is considered to be a moderate - you have him labelled wrong, too. Liberals want absolutely FREE healthcare & college. You know, the stuff that REALLY terrifies you with regard to socialism.
As I've said, Ocare WAS the compromise between the two extremes of absolutely NO healthcare and 100% free healthcare. Oh yeah, it needs to be fixed because BOTH SIDES have their BS all over it.
You say you’re pro-life, but then you want to limit health care for my disabled son
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act … c672c0ba51
The thing that infuriates me the most is having to redo all of this healthcare stuff all over again in a few years - after we FINALLY got a good start on one. Maybe the next version will be better, yet; but continuing to go back & forth is wasting us a bunch of money.
The upshot is, we're sick of working with the extremes of either side. When we manage to get ahold of a majority (which shouldn't be very hard at all, now); we will simply not work with GOP like they have not worked with us. Complain about Dems all you want - at least they TRY to work with the other side, with the results being crap like Obamacare!
I mean, really... GOP think they are God's gift to this country in the literal kind of way. They don't need anyone else but themselves and their rich puppetmasters. I hope the next healthcare bill after this one IS 100% FREE for absolutely everyone in this country JUST to spite you all. If socialism is what makes you nervous, I'm becoming all for it. I'd say Bernie has a really good chance of winning the next election, now - so that should work out nicely. WOOT!!You don't want free healthcare (at least free to the one that has it) for the poor? If not, if you would rather they litter the streets with their bodies, I'm sorry - I was sure you wanted health insurance for everyone whether they could afford it or not. And that's a liberal program. Wanting the most expensive package in the history of the world, to be paid for by taxes, is not "moderate".
We had a start of a good healthcare "stuff"? When it will put the country into bankruptcy? You and I have very differing concepts of what "good" is, it seems.
Fact is, under your definition I'm Middle of the road, too. And, in fact, that's how I see myself - the biggest difference between us seems to be that you like the liberal pretend world of unlimited resources while I prefer reality, where resources are limited and can be used up.
We differ there, and in the ethics of it all, anyway. You have yet to indicate what gives you the ethical or moral right to demand someone else pay your way through life.
Finally, healthcare paid for out of the tax base is the only reasonable option if we want care for everyone. No providing profits to insurance companies, no requiring the young to pay for the elderly; we either share the costs equally (or at least as equally as the tax code allows) or we don't do it at all.
Really? What's the actual impact? I haven't seen anything other than Republicans are having a harder time hiring illegals for their farms and factories.
Which means more jobs right off the bat. Now add fewer illegal drivers, fewer drivers without insurance, fewer kids in schools, fewer food stamps to put out.
Is that enough or do you need more? Maybe that Democrats used to hiring illegal labor can't do it as easily now?All idle speculation. When you have actual proof, feel free to get back to me.
??? You said that farmers couldn't find help because the illegals weren't coming in their normal amounts. Doesn't that mean more jobs are available?
If they don't bring their kids (which they do), doesn't that mean fewer kids in school? If they don't have drivers licenses, but drive anyway (which they do), doesn't that mean fewer illegal drivers on the road?
Seems to me that just a few moments of rational thought produces these indisputable facts - what's with the "prove it!" requirement?
The DEMONcrats are still fighting Trumpcare. Well, the SOONER Obama"care" is repealed, THE BETTER!
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you as this so called repeal is yet to be seen.
If "repeal" means "changed almost beyond recognition" (and that is what seems to be the case) it WILL happen. Through legislation or through economic collapse, it WILL happen for it is not sustainable the way it is.
It is certainly not going to be any more sustainable, politically or otherwise with the GOP version. What makes you think that McConnell will successfully herd the remaining holdouts without meaningful concessions to the GOP ideal, one way or the other? I am not not seeing that now.
Not referring to "politically" sustainable. We all know that the "politics" of ObamaCare requires nearly infinite expenditures (and taxes) - that's what is not sustainable. If we the people cannot understand that we are not children, able to get whatever we wish from our parents (no cash? Just use your card!) then we as a nation will not succeed.
Wilderness, so whatis your solution? Do you go back to the period beforeObamacare? Uninsured people cost us all, one way or the other. Because if you are flesh and bone and are mortal there is always the risk of illness or injury. Do we return to medical doctors and institutions providing emergency care at no cost to indigent ones? Or do we leave them to die in the street? Who pays? In any case? it is pay me now or pay me later.
The principles of the 'New Deal' are a fixture in American life and it will not be changed without political trouble for the GOP, that's a given.
Itis not that I don't see your concern for a collectivist mindset going amuck, but how far back do we have to go to find the America of your liking? Maybe, the way things were prior to 1900? Really, is that realistic for you?
I would really like to know....The primary suggestion I have is to include a primary care clinic next door to every ER and all patients to the ER are met with triage and instructions as to where to go. Yes, return to the days of purchased insurance (purchased by the patient, not a stranger on the other side of the continent). Or do away with insurance entirely; the pad-the-pockets of insurance companies at taxpayer expense for that was, is and always will be madness.
The New Deal never, ever included cradle to grave care for anyone wanting it, but that's what we're getting to, and real quick.
Personally, I would not be adverse to what we had (in the way of entitlement programs) in the 60's or 70's. But the question is two sided; what would you consider reasonable? Give everyone $50,000 each year? Give everyone a house, a car, all clothing and food, any utility needs, unlimited health care, an unlimited phone, a computer with internet, etc.? What would you say is strictly up to the individual to provide for themselves?What if the patients are unconscious or do not have an insurance policy? How does one pay medical bills of say 60-70K?
I reply to this and say Single Payer. The costs of medicine and physicians are rising faster than inflation, not everybody can afford catastrophic medical expenses. In every other developed country this is not a problem, why here? The situation prior to Obamacare was unsustainable in my opinion. So, we disagree here...
I think that basic health care for every citizen should be included with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I am on another page from your opinion here as well.
Sixties or Seventies? I am surprised. We had all of these 'social programs' in place by then. Is it just the Health Care issue that is your problem, then?
Funny, though, while I would have thought that you would have been content with BC 'before civility/civilization' America of the 19th century. You, at the same time take me to want a totally socialist existence down to proving everyone a free toothbrush?
I support Social Security as providing a minimum floor to prevent people from a point of poverty where they cannot survive. I never said that that necessarily meant that they were to be comfortable on a feather bed. The program, if not gutted by the GOP, should be basically sustainable as is.
Over and above that, we are all obligated to work for the things that we want. Outside of a minimum 'Health care' standard for all, that you will disagree with, the other consumer based goods and services you speak of should be obtained by those who are willing pay for it.
Again, either of us really can claim to the extremes, I am comfortable with more aspects of collectivism than you and less enamored by the free and open market as solving all of our ills.I could go for a single payer...if it contained limits on spending. We cannot afford unlimited spending, just as England cannot (think the dying baby there). It would probably be sustainable, where ObamaCare is not.
But you won't provide homes for the homeless? Food for the starving? Transportation to a job? A cell phone? You won't give electricity or gas to those that can't/won't pay their bill in sub zero temperatures? I'm really surprised here that you would let people die from lack of money! (Isn't that the perpetual shrill liberal cry - "You want the little children to [i]DIIIEEE!!!")
We had the programs in the 60's, yes...programs that have expanded from a little help when necessary to total support from cradle to grave. The 60's programs were workable, the ones today are merely destructive of both individuals and society.OK, we can agree on single payer with some sort of upside limit..
I would provide opportunity so that those that are not elderly, infirm or a minor can with effort avoid homelessness. That may mean investing in people with low cost trade schools, even if it means subsidies, it is better than welfare as we might be able to keep people and whole families, attitudes and cultures away from this alternative. Better to teach people how to be productive and make it possible for the ones desiring a way out than to subsidize idleness, yes? I know that it does not fit the conservatives' mantra of lifting ones self by ones boot straps, but that is reality today. I will deny these things you speak of only to able bodied adults that will not take the option of either working, if only for the county or city or engaging in an education plan. Those that insist on being aggressively lazy I cannot help and must leave to their own fate. As a progressive, I offer people more options than conservatives would be comfortable with, but at the end of the day, the bottom line remains, "those that do not work, shall not eat".
While taking the benefits from people that are not rich, we liberals always think that is exactly what conservatives want, that the children die. What else when they gut all the programs that are for their benefit?
Besides the health care, what programs are you claiming are destructive to individuals and society that did not exist in the 1960's?Trade schools (and perhaps community colleges, too) are a GREAT idea.
Now the only thing left is to convince the lady that hasn't worked a day in her life, or the young man that has grown up with that lady, to go to one with the idea of actually working for a living. Or to convince the family that has never left their state and lives in the house for a decade to pick up stakes and move to where the jobs are. Or to convince the coal miner, some of a coal miner that is in turn son of a coal miner, to become a computer tech in the city.
Trade schools are great, but only if people will USE them. And as long as we continue to throw money at the problem instead of offering solutions and a strong incentive to accept those solutions, a great many won't.
Only the truly hateful or insane actually believe conservatives or anyone else want people to die. That old saw is not only insulting but clearly points out the hatred and ignorance of those that mouth it.
Most of the welfare system. When people are trained on how to survive (and survive well) without a stitch of work it is destructive. To that person and to the society that houses the person. And you know as well as I do that we are doing exactly that; training people in how to get the absolute most they can from Uncle Sam, do it without need to produce anything of value, and do it long term. There was much back slapping when my state recently completed an expensive program to search out more thousands of people, mostly rural, that they could convince to accept food stamps. People that were doing OK without throwing money at them, but will now be locked into that charity the rest of their lives, for they will not leave their homes to get either training OR jobs. They will continue just as they have in the past, except that the nation will now pay them to do so instead of allowing them the simple pride of self sufficiency.Trade schools (and perhaps community colleges, too) are a GREAT idea.
I am not pessimistic about the human condition and I say that more people will take advantage of opportunities to better themselves and the lives of the children than not. Removing an impediment or two, many would see it as an advantage to not have to live on the edge all their lives. I think that the idea of making the opportunity available is worth the effort even if it can reduce the numbers of the people on the dole currently. Rather than complain about welfare, what alternatives have been really available to the inner city resident, for example? There are always going to be lazy, hopeless people, but I will not apply a broad brush and say that all people living in economically disadvantaged circumstances are ALL lazy and beyond redemption, as a given.
----
Trade schools are great, but only if people will USE them. And as long as we continue to throw money at the problem instead of offering solutions and a strong incentive to accept those solutions, a great many won't.
------
Perhaps a great many will. We wont know that until we have tried, now would we? When has this idea ever REALLY been considered? I offer strong incentives such as, 'you had better find a means of support or if you insist on being lazy, it is destitution for sure with no recourse'.
----
Only the truly hateful or insane actually believe conservatives or anyone else want people to die. That old saw is not only insulting but clearly points out the hatred and ignorance of those that mouth it.
---------
When you defund programs designed to help those that are most vulnerable, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. Are the conservatives expecting manna to fall from heaven to help such people?
Most of the welfare system. When people are trained on how to survive (and survive well) without a stitch of work it is destructive.
--------------
Yes, I agree, but instead of complaining lets produce a viable alternative...
---------------------
There was much back slapping when my state recently completed an expensive program to search out more thousands of people, mostly rural, that they could convince to accept food stamps. People that were doing OK without throwing money at them, but will now be locked into that charity the rest of their lives, for they will not leave their homes to get either training OR jobs.
-----------------------------------
Is there an income standard associated with receiving these food stamps? What is considered to be 'doing OK'? Maybe, things are not so 'OK". I thought that you Idaho folks were tough individualists and would resist charity that always come with costs that many do not see on the surface.
--------------------------
They will continue just as they have in the past, except that the nation will now pay them to do so instead of allowing them the simple pride of self sufficiency
---------------------------
I believe that the pride of self sufficiency still exists and with the threat of traditional welfare, sitting around and collecting money, without a plan, disappearing, people have cause to be concerned. The inner city mother with supplemental education with the help of others on the program providing child care services, can learn a trade or skill. It is not impossible, but we are all going to have to help and invest and if after all this that mother insists on sitting she puts her viability and that of her children at risk, because there are no provisions left."I am not pessimistic about the human condition and I say that more people will take advantage of opportunities to better themselves and the lives of the children than not."
Not sure I can agree here in principle. But I AM positive that when going to school, learning skills/trade and getting a new job nets the welfare recipient absolutely nothing but self respect, they will not do it. And that is the way our system is currently set up.
I know you paid lip service to that incentive. I just don't think you will follow through, and I'm absolutely positive that the far left and the politician buying votes will not.
"When you defund programs designed to help those that are most vulnerable, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. Are the conservatives expecting manna to fall from heaven to help such people?"
No. It's part of that "incentive" thing that you wish to happen, but backpedal when it comes time to do it.
"I thought that you Idaho folks were tough individualists and would resist charity"
According to the reports it WAS a tough sell to many "customers". And many refused even after that hard sell. But they still got thousands of new people to draw in federal money (from your pocket) to the state.
"I believe that the pride of self sufficiency still exists"
We disagree here, and I don't know who is right. Or if there IS a "right" answer. I think that "self sufficiency" pride of the past has become pride in how well the system can be manipulated: pride in how much they can scam out of Uncle Sam.Not sure I can agree here in principle. But I AM positive that when going to school, learning skills/trade and getting a new job nets the welfare recipient absolutely nothing but self respect, they will not do it. And that is the way our system is currently set up.
--------------------------
Whose says that it has to be JUST about self respect, it is about more money and that in itself is adequate motivation for most people. If there is a realistic path to get there.
-------
I know you paid lip service to that incentive. I just don't think you will follow through, and I'm absolutely positive that the far left and the politician buying votes will not.
-----------------------
Are we not being a bit arrogant? Who are you to say that I would double back on what I have said? Only conservatives do that.... No different from saying to you that you want the babies to die?
-----------
"When you defund programs designed to help those that are most vulnerable, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. Are the conservatives expecting manna to fall from heaven to help such people?"
----------------------
No. It's part of that "incentive" thing that you wish to happen, but backpedal when it comes time to do it.
--------------
Conservatives are about repeal, I say repeal and replace. When the solution is more than just throwing the poor and impoverished out into the street, period.... then we can visit new approaches.
-------------
"I believe that the pride of self sufficiency still exists"
---------------------
We disagree here, and I don't know who is right. Or if there IS a "right" answer. I think that "self sufficiency" pride of the past has become pride in how well the system can be manipulated: pride in how much they can scam out of Uncle Sam.
-------------------------
You can be a dour fellow at times, we are hooked on pigeonholing, stereotyping, you hear of a few superfluous examples and now it is the rule, I don't think so. If that scam scenario of yours is true for the poor, it is true for the rich as well, they just do it on a larger scale"Whose says that it has to be JUST about self respect, it is about more money and that in itself is adequate motivation for most people. If there is a realistic path to get there."
You missed the point. Take someone earning $16,000 and getting $25,000 in entitlements (not uncommon for a family of 4 - the total "income" is around 40-45 thousand). Now send them to night school for a year (tough for most people) and get them a job in the new trade 500 miles from home. They earn $40,000 and now find all the entitlements gone. Their net payout for that difficult year of night school, a new trade and moving away from their home is...self respect and a probable small loss of total "income". THAT'S how the system is set up.
LOL How would I know you would backtrack on work or die? Because that's the first thing you did. And the very next statement - it's about repeal and replace - does it again. Take the entitlements away...and give them right back.
Dour - maybe. But it's what I see and hear from those on welfare: they take pride in working the system for all it's worth. They tout that they got more. Any pride of being self sufficient is missing entirely...perhaps because they did "work" in learning how to work the system for all it's worth. And saying the rich are just as illegal as the guy claiming disability while running a triathalon doesn't make it right (or true, either, for that matter).
Damn Credence2! That sounds almost Purple. Have you been smoking weed with Willie again?
GANo, GA, that is BLUE, even moderate conservatives would never entertain such radical ideas as equal opportunity and the innate equality of people. The idea of minimizing the influence of unearned advantages by some to promote a society of real opportunity and possibility for the many is anathema to the conservative mindset.
I have been accused of advocating for the 'far left". I think these proposals that I have made are fair and will ultimately work to sustain our system of 'Capitalism with reservation'.
We, on the true left, are often times misunderstood.....What is this "innate equality of people"? Do you really think that all people have the same IQ, the same physical abilities, the same emotional makeup, the same "drive", the same "inventiveness", etc.? That's a fantasy of the far left (while the other side of the mouth decries those that are NOT equal) ; surely a moderate knows better!
What is this "innate equality of people"?
In the eyes of the law people are equal, when it comes to the opportunity to attain to whatever capabilities are within their potential, they are equal.
It is not about oligarchy; whose has the most money/privilege or the right skin color. I am not talking about equality of outcomes, but equality of opportunity. On the latter, I have to dispute with conservatives more than a few times as to what that means.
Let's take a look at that "Blue" credence2.
"... Better to teach people how to be productive and make it possible for the ones desiring a way out than to subsidize idleness, yes?"
Yes. That is a Moderate, (Purple), thought.
"...I will deny these things you speak of only to able bodied adults that will not take the option of either working..."
Not only is that not a "Blue" thought, it is almost a "Red" thought. It is only the context leading up to that line that redeems it as a "Purple" thought.
"Those that insist on being aggressively lazy I cannot help and must leave to their own fate. As a progressive, I offer people more options than conservatives would be comfortable with, but at the end of the day, the bottom line remains, "those that do not work, shall not eat".
Come on Cred, that is "Purple" all the way. Even including the "Progressive" declaration couldn't turn that into a "Blue" thought. Maybe we should be considering a sub-category; Moderate Progressive ;-)
"While taking the benefits from people that are not rich, we liberals always think that is exactly what conservatives want, that the children die. What else when they gut all the programs that are for their benefit?"
Ok, Ok, that was a pure "Blue" thought. But even so... look at the your non-partisan FCO scoring; 3 to 1 Purple.
ps. Don't let yourself get worked-up over this one little bit of slippage. You still make enough other "True Blue" comments to maintain your "Progressive Liberal" credentials.
GAYes. That is a Moderate, (Purple), thought.
I don't believe even my most lefty friends are about 'get everything you want without compensation'. It is just while the conservatives want to cut out the programs and leave those without to fend for themselves, like the GOP idea of 'repeal only' health care, progressives want to use the subsidies designated for welfare for incentive to get people off from the dole and not abandon them to poverty. This is the difference and that is what makes me Blue. Red thought: people who do not work do not eat
Blue thought: give people the means to work and participate and they can eat. Not ask them to lift themselves on bootstraps from non-existent boots.
----------------------
Come on Cred, that is "Purple" all the way. Even including the "Progressive" declaration couldn't turn that into a "Blue" thought. Maybe we should be considering a sub-category; Moderate Progressive ;-)
---------------
Can you really think of anyone on these forums that is to the left of me? Not even Sanders is promoting free everything. If there is a radical left, politically, I don't see it. I am as radical as it gets.
------------
ps. Don't let yourself get worked-up over this one little bit of slippage. You still make enough other "True Blue" comments to maintain your "Progressive Liberal" credentials.
-----------------
Good to know that my credentials are still good!!"I don't believe even my most lefty friends are about 'get everything you want without compensation'."
Give credit where it's due: I wouldn't call those people "lefty", either. Just greedy and lazy, feeding off the compassion of the lefties that close their eyes when handing out the money. The lefties heart is in the right place (now if they would only think about what they're doing and what the long term results will be), whereas those wanting everything without work are just leeches feeding off them.
- Onusonusposted 6 years ago
0One mismanaged government program traded for a different flavor of the same bureaucracy. And Planned UnParenthood gets to keep killing babies on the public dole.
Not what we hired these guys to do."Q: Does your bill cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, who provide critical health care services to women?
A: Our plan imposes a one-year freeze on federal funding for organizations that provide abortion services. Instead our legislation increases funding for Federal Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which are community-based, patient-centered organizations that provide health services to medically underserved individuals. Unlike boutique clinics such as Planned Parenthoods that generally only provide reproductive health services and abortions, FQHCs provide comprehensive medical, dental, mental health and other primary care services. These services also include STD testing, cancer screening and family planning and contraceptive management. "
* https://housegop.lpages.co/ahca-faqs/
We have a new Supreme Court Judge, and I hear Kennedy may be stepping soon. Somethings will take time, but keep the faith and I'm sure there will be many good changes coming to America.
List of Obamacare Taxes Repealed in the American Health Care Act, totaling $1.2 TRILLION.
The bill abolishes the following taxes imposed by Obama and the Democrat party in 2010 as part of Obamacare:
-Abolishes the Obamacare Individual Mandate Tax which hits 8 million Americans each year.
-Abolishes the Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax. Together with repeal of the Individual Mandate Tax repeal this is a $270 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Medicine Cabinet Tax which hits 20 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts and 30 million Americans with Flexible Spending Accounts. This is a $6 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Flexible Spending Account tax on 30 million Americans. This is a $20 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s Chronic Care Tax on 10 million Americans with high out of pocket medical expenses. This is a $126 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s HSA withdrawal tax. This is a $100 million tax cut.
-Abolishes Obamacare’s 10% excise tax on small businesses with indoor tanning services. This is a $600 million tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare health insurance tax. This is a $145 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income. This is a $172 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare medical device tax. This is a $20 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on prescription medicine. This is a $28 billion tax cut.
-Abolishes the Obamacare tax on retiree prescription drug coverage. This is a $2 billion tax cut.
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama had promised repeatedly that he would not raise any tax on any American earning less than $250,000 per year. He broke the promise when he signed Obamacare. With the passage of the House GOP bill, tens of millions of middle income Americans will get tax relief from Obamacare's long list of tax hikes.
Read more: http://www.atr.org/list-obamacare-taxes … z4gAeav3lzThere is no doubt there is still work to do. But I believe the Republican’s health care plan is the right first step towards fixing a complex and crumbling system. Maybe we won't need to get rid of Paul Ryan.
Let's hope you or anyone you know does not get sick, lose employment, bleed the family dry paying for healthcare and end up dead long before other similarly unfortunate people in more equitable countries.
I'm all for a sensible and fair system where every citizen has the right to basic and life saving medical help. What we had with Obamacare wasn't even close. Every company won at the expense of the average citizen. Of course, we might stand a fighting chance of implementing one if we weren't footing the bill for the costs of developing new drugs for the world and didn't live in a system where doctors expect six figure incomes.
This idiotic notion that the US is somehow super-important in developing new drugs and treatments needs to be dealt with.
But maybe I don't need to. Trump is cutting back on research of all kinds so that stuff will just fade away.
Anyway... Maybe tomorrow when I have time. You will need to be able to read graphs. Last time I tried it was obvious that graphs were challenging, lol.Personally I don't mind my surgeon earning 6 figures. And when I think of the football player that earns the same I REALLY don't mind.
I agree with your first sentence. Wilderness, let me emphasize what I just said. I used the words "I agree" in response to your post. Please remember this moment.
I just want to end the tax penalty for not having insurance. That is not the American way. The American way is toward freedom, not tyranny.
Thanks for NOTHING, OBAMA et all!
Thanks for this freedom of speech.Absolutely, I struggle to find anything to thank Obama for. I am beyond fed up with the Democrats on the Obamacare issue. They act like five year old brats.
President Obama's direct lies from "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" to "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" to "everyone's costs will drop $2500.00 per families" to their lies now about all the "losses" that will come from its repeal. Its nauseating.
What they said then and now are all lies...all falsehoods they knew were false at the time they said them. So, now when the current Democrat leadership scream about the repeal and lie again and again... I am amazed by their continued deception and attempt to keep a failing program that has made healthcare less accessible and more expensive.
It is not acceptable, but the Democrats are bemoaning the repeal of the Obamacare "lie". Such ilk, lie and promote the idea of "controlling" health care for their own political reason with zero concern about how the bogus legislation has adversely affected real people. Its like they are "the adversary" of "We The People".
Rant over.The tax penalty was meant to stop the practice of people who:
1. Hide assets
2. Have a big medical bill
3. File for bankruptcy
4. Dump their costs on the rest of us
5. Drive up our premiums
6. Live in a big house in Florida that bankruptcies can't touch
Now that my health insurance will rocket up to $30,000 a year, I have no choice but to cancel it. Fortunately, the new bill will allow me to follow the above tactics so I don't lose everything I have worked for my entire career.You forgot to mention the primary cause for the penalty: to force, using financial weapons, the purchase of insurance that was excessively expensive and unwanted. It was never to prevent any of the things you list, not even #4. If we don't want to pay for their costs there is nothing in this world forcing us to do so.
The result of that penalty was, and is, to force the people least able to afford it to cover the expected health care costs for high risk groups.I didn't offer an opinion. I offered simple facts. Why do you think so many people weren't buying health insurance before ACA? Everything I describe above was a known practice.
I suggest you do more research on how to protect assets legally from bankruptcy. The Enron executives are a classic example.
The ACA penalty was chump change for anyone who wanted to play the above game. The new bill makes it even easier.
You know, if the Republicans really wanted to do something to improve the Affordable Healthcare Act, they could have started passing legislation to improve it seven years ago. This is all a dog and pony show to get them re-elected.
One of the biggest problems with the Republicans has been that they were divided, "a house divided cannot stand". Finally, only days ago they were able to unite, "united we stand".
Still 20 Republicans voted 'No". I hope voters don't forget who they are, no way should they be re-elected to anything, except maybe a dog and pony show. ... They voted to kill babies!
Andy Biggs (AZ-5)
Mike Coffman (CO-6)
Barbara Comstock (VA-10)
Ryan Costello (PA-6)
Charlie Dent (PA-15)
Dan Donovan (NY-11)
Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-8)
Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-3)
Will Hurd (TX-23)
Walter Jones (NC-3)
David Joyce (OH-14)
John Katko (NY-24)
Leonard Lance (NJ-7)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2)
Thomas Massie (KY-4)
Patrick Meehan (PA-7)
Dave Reichert (WA-8)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)
Christopher Smith (NJ-4)
Michael Turner (OH-10)
Credit for list: https://www.hermancain.com/we-wont-forg … st-in-2018
The best part about the new healthcare bill is that it makes the people who use healthcare the most pay the most for their premiums. Insurers will be able to raise premiums on those who use the services most, exactly how it should be.
Thus, those with pre-existing conditions will have to pay far more in the health insurance than those of us who are healthy and lead good lives. And old people will have to pay far more for health insurance than those of us who are healthy and lead good lives. This is exactly what Tom Price said on Fox and Friends, in case you want to follow up on the veracity of this.
There are specific provisions in this new healthcare bill that will dramatically increase the premiums on those people most likely to need healthcare.
Those who play need to pay!
There are also big cuts to Medicaid. No more government-run healthcare! If the Republicans can just get rid of both Medicaid and Medicare completely, we will be free of government interference in our healthcare system.I haven't been involved in this discussion, just stumbled across your post Misfit.
Our "Gift" is that we ALL have inherent Rights, which come from God...not Gov.
The Gov is "Limited", via the U.S. Constitution, in what they can and cannot do.
The ONLY thing that Conservatives and most Republicans want to "Limit" is the Government!
When was it decided that the Government was to be in the health care business anyway? Who decided that should be added to their Job Description? Are we to ignore all of the ongoing Problems at the V.A.? Also....who decided that the Gov could hold onto our money better than us? I may or may not get the money they've been 'Holding' for me. My children definitely will not get theirs.
A "Limited" Government is the best Government!There are some very good Christian health care programs that people can get in on, some have been around for thirty years. Christian Healthcare Ministries (CHM) is a non-profit ministry, not insurance, but people helping each other pay their medical costs.
* http://www.chministries.org/Any organization that requires a "gift" or "donation" rather than a "premium" and has no legal obligation to cover any of your costs is one to stay as far away from as possible. That your "gift" goes through an escrow arrangement, separating this CHM from you yet another step is another reason.
Although it is set up as an insurance, complete with deductibles and pre-existing conditions, it fails to guarantee payment of a single dime. That the language is described as "sharing" rather than "paying" is nothing but a legal scam, IMO, and a requirement that the purchaser must attend church regularly reinforces that.
Sorry, but no thank you. I'll do without before sending a dime to those people.Oh, I understand. Going by faith isn't for everyone, not even when CHM has been around for decades and has always been an option to Obamacare. Low cost, a ACA wavier and no penalties.
Being honest, I have not taken advantage of the service myself because I don't attend church.Both the Mormon and Catholic churches have been around for decades (the Catholic for 2,000 years) but I would not trust either one of them either, and they both claim to have a direction connection to God.
Did you mean to type, "would not"? Because then I would tend to lean the same way about the Mormon church and Catholic church...um, religious institutions.
Yes, - that was a typo and should be would NOT. Yes, religious institutions...such as an institution that requires church attendance to pay medical bills that you have paid a "gift" for already. Somehow I doubt that attendance of a Mosque, or maybe a pagan ritual, would count much with them.
Just having the word "Christian" might be enough of a line in the sand. Using the word "Christian" would drive some people to self-destruction. Life is funny that way.
Did you even READ my original post about this? I have NEVER EVER EVER said that Obamacare is perfect - what I SAID is that it is a compromise as bad as it is because BOTH GOP & Dems have two extreme views about what heathcare should be; and Ocare is the result. Just because Obamacare isn't what it should be; doesn't mean that the GOP have any right AT ALL to gut it and replace it with 'just their' ideal. It will no-doubt be one of the fastest things that we replace after we kick Trump out. More expense because of GOP STUPIDITY & SELFISHNESS.
Again, WHY did Trump PRAISE Australia's countrywide heathcare coverage?
And one more time again... Why are you so offended about being required to carry health insurance when we already require car insurance for the same reasons - or be penalized for not having it?
"When was it decided that the Government was to be in the health care business anyway?"
I'm responding to this with the following link - which you obviously did not read the first time - along with my usual biting cartoon commentary cuz I know most GOP & T-fans LOVE 'funny', in-your-face reality.
You say you’re pro-life, but then you want to limit health care for my disabled son -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act … 4e16e254df
You understand that we are required to carry car insurance, if we choose to drive, to protect the other driver? That collision insurance, or uninsured motorist, to protect the insured, is entirely voluntary?
Medical insurance protects no one but the insured, and is not voluntary, Under ObamaCare anyway. You are deemed unfit to make your own, very personal decisions about protection or where you will spend your money, and are thus forced to do as the bureaucracy wants you to.
There is no other law in the land that forces you to buy something you don't want - there is always a choice, even if it is not to drive a car on public roads.Of course there is a choice - you can either choose to buy it or be fined. Its the way car insurance works; and we require people who drive to carry it BECAUSE of the possibility of hurting someone ELSE.
What you fail to understand, is that when people don't carry health insurance 'we the people' STILL cover it - except, its much more expensive to cover with the way you and the GOP view 'freedom'. Its very much like what Don W. talks about taxes & being part of a society, above.
I'd rather help people in the beginning of a problem when it is less expensive and more likely to be 'healed' - instead of people waiting to eventually go to the emergency room and die shortly afterwards. End of life services are very expensive, even moreso when it could have been prevented.
What do you have to say about the link I left? Ignored it, no doubt.
You are ALWAYS in here, Wilderness - you don't do any research or read anything beyond what you already THINK you know.
Also, the Shriner's Hospitals, around since the 1920's, (unbelievable) still thriving today on donations, because a majority of people are compassionate, understanding, loving and giving!
That's right! That is how St. Jude works too. There are options because caring people are willing to pay for or share the costs. It works and saves lives.
Whew, I had to scroll and scroll and scroll....to get past the so-called 'funnies', aka wasted space, I forgot my point.
Now, that's funny...kind of what happens with me too...just keep scrolling down and never bother to read them.
I see Maryland’s largest healthcare insurer is planning on raising rates by 50%. CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield will raise rated a 35% increase in Virginia and 29% increase in Washington DC. Not good!
"The ‘death spiral’ occurs when sick people who need expensive coverage stay in the insurance pool as healthier individuals opt-out of the marketplace. The result is rapidly increasing insurance costs which translates to higher premiums and massive deductibles.
As a result, many insurance companies are cutting their losses and dropping out of the Obamacare exchanges." (Hannity)Couple that opt-out by healthy people with unrealistic government price controls and it isn't a "death spiral", but a "death slide" straight to the bottom. Living in a pretend land never works very well, whether the pretense is set up by government bureaucrats of individuals.
Doubtful. There were very few "winners" in ObamaCare. Some political points made early on, but that's it for those that voted that boondoggle into place.
I thought the figure was 18 million?
And of course, the health corporations were allowed to continuing profiteering.18 million what? People with fine sounding insurance they can't use because of high deductibles? Personally, I don't call that "winning".
They sure did (profiteer) That's why they are dumping ACA plans everywhere we look!Hey Wilderness, I just heard Aetna is pulling out of two states completely - citing losses of $900 million - supporting Obamacare mandated coverage, since 2014. I guess that would mean that even huge premium increases wouldn't be enough to make a profit.
So much for the "greedy" healthcare insurance companies rational.
GAYes, I heard that, as well as quite a few others. Just a part of why it isn't workable - government price controls never are.
Or maybe we could require any company offering insurance to also offer ObamaCare health insurance. Geico, State Farm, etc. They could make up their losses on car insurance - a plus as without cars on the road the pollution will go down and people will be healthier. Or on home insurance; the tiny, cheap homes resulting would do wonders for our energy consumption. Wonder that it hasn't been instituted already!
In the past, no one expected anything from anyone, not even their parents! If their parents ended up helping them, that was an unexpected bonus! Some might have even refused the help of their parents because they wanted to be self-reliant and not burdensome.
Weird!
!!!!!!There are still many people with this kind of 'pride' - and others of us have had to give into it for extra help, at times. I'm one of those people. While I am not on any government programs at the moment, a couple of them (food stamps & Obamacare) have helped me through a few low-down months in the past. (Trust me, I had absolutely NO additional luxuries being funneled to me. My parents have always lived paycheck to paycheck while managing to carve out a meager retirement fund. They gave me $50 to help me cover my electric bill, once - and that is all.)
That is what those programs are for - to help people get a leg up. The fact that GOP sympathizers buy into their dogma that absolutely everyone who uses these programs are lazy, good-for-nothing criminals who perpetually abuse them is just another GOP propaganda LIE. If they are being abused, its because there is not enough money within government programs to provide the additional jobs needed to HELP monitor & police abuses.
This is actually as big of a problem as 'not having enough money' to go around. These agencies are overloaded & overwhelmed every single day; and the people who work in them with such a deficit of help (and often low pay to begin with) deserve kudos for their determined, helpful spirits despite the hardships. (If you've worked in these places, they are HARD to work in - just based on the gargantuan amounts of negative social situations they are trying to help people manuever through. Most of them are really ugly and NOT for the faint of heart.)
These days I help people who are on these programs. While there are some chronic 'gimmee' cases; there are far more people who just need help getting to the next rung of the ladder. They are no different than you or I when it comes to pride and wanting to take care of their own. Many of them actually eventually acheive the goal of independence with the help of government support. Others of them come close and probably will never get off things like Obamacare for help with healthcare needs.
I've said this elsewhere and I'll say it again... Obamacare wasn't perfect bcuz of GOP as much as bcuz of Dems - they need to work together a LOT better. I blame BOTH political parties for its failure. Neither 1 extreme nor the other is going to win on this issue (well, maybe after Tman is out, Universal Healthcare will finally be seriously considered - we'll see); and arguing over it for DECADES has been VERY expensive.
I really think that the next president we elect as POTUS will be for Universal Healthcare. Just a hunch... America has caused most of its own homeless & healthcare crisis'. Its time we seriously address these problems from the perspective of inclusion instead of indifference while watching them get worse.
Related Discussions
- 153
If we do not repeal Obama Care...
by Kathryn L Hill 9 years ago
If we do not repeal Obama Care...what will happen to the nation?Will we ever enjoy the same amount of liberty that we had before?For instance, I was fined $200.00 for not having health insurance.I know others who were fined $400.00 this year. Next year we will be fined even more. How much more we...
- 327
50 million Americans uninsured and that's ok because.....?
by Susan Reid 12 years ago
Just read the revised (upward, of course) number of Americans without health insurance. I'm hoping someone here can explain to me how this is better than Obamacare?Seriously.The number of people lacking health insurance increased to 49.9 million, a new high after revisions were made to 2009...
- 46
Trump's HealthCare plan to repeal ObamaCare
by Susie Lehto 8 years ago
HEALTHCARE REFORM TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAINSince March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and...
- 59
The train wreck that is ObamaCare
by Alexander A. Villarasa 10 years ago
What does one expect of a piece of legislation that was voted on, and passed both by the Senate and Congress, signed into law by Pres. Obama, and certified by the Supreme Court as being constitutional? High Hopes of course, but in the case of the Affordabe Health Care Act (popularly...
- 33
Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016
by Stacie L 11 years ago
Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016by Joan McCarterFollow The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services actuary reports: "We have achieved significant tangible savings that have been passed on to beneficiaries," said Jonathan Blum, director of the Center for...
- 66
What is the Best Lie You’ve Heard about Obamacare?
by Dr Billy Kidd 11 years ago
For me, U.S. House majority leader Eric Cantor made the best lie on Morning Joe (6/29/2012). Cantor said that the law takes away your healthcare policy and replaces it with one dictated by Washington. NBC’s Tom Brokaw immediately challenged that. Brokaw said that the law states that you can keep...