|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
The question should not be who's to blame for AHCA, the question should be, "Is it working." Is there anyone out there who has signed up, had a good experience, received much cheaper healthcare than before?
now I'll be eagerly waiting to see if anyone responds to THIS thread too, since it asks about the Affordable Care Act "instead of" Obamacare...............hahahhaaa
And indeed the underlying issue IS always who is responsible for the unConstitutional mandate in this Bill. Heck, fraud "works" for people for a while; theft "works" for people for a while; tyranny "works" for people for a while................
AHCA? Oh you mean the "The Tax Accountants' and Divorce Lawyers' Full Employment Act" (See http://oldpoolman.hubpages.com/hub/Anot … discovered) Well the answer to tirelesstraveler's question is a resounding "NOOOOOOO" End of story. and here is one reason why by an X Obama henchman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvcGSTe3JuM
How do you know? Thousands of people signed up. I suspect they had a reason to think it was a good idea.
So how's it working for you then psycheskinner?
I wouldn't know. The site is so buggered I still can't even get onto the thing.
I'd like to know how many of those "thousands" are just the new Medicaid recipients.
I have employer provided insurance and so don't need it. But there have been time when the only insurance I could get was more than I could afford and I went without. They interviewed several on the local news last night and showed how they could now access insurance when previously they could not.
Whether or not you think it was the right choice for the country as a whole, some people are going to be helped by it.
Whether or not you think it was the right choice for the country as a whole, some people are going to be helped by it.
Perfect statement because sorry, the idea behind government is to do what is right for the country as a whole.
We'll see how "right & great" the President & the Democrats truly believe this law is. The GOP has just presented a clean CR to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. The only stipulation is that the President and the Congress must live by the law they've shoved upon the American people. Guarantee you they won't agree. Tells the whole story right there.
I heard last Thursday, about 60,000 people signed up in California and only 6,000 bought the insurance. At least the website is working in CA.. Why didn't the people who signed up buy the insurance?.
We were told we can, but we won't qualify for any assistance.
"How do you know? Thousands of people signed up. I suspect they had a reason to think it was a good idea."
Penn and Teller's skit to ban Dihydrogen monoxide a.k.a water comes to mind. Just because people think something's a good idea, doesn't mean that it is.
Because they don't know, the states have not all reported the numbers.
Heard today the administration isn't going to release the numbers until next year. Listened to a computer web designer talk about the security breaches in the website. I would be scared to death to put my information on that site.
State run exchanges are reporting their numbers.
The only one not reporting numbers are HHS run websites.
Oh still can't get on either.
The White House would not reveal Wednesday how many consumers have actually enrolled in new plans at HealthCare.gov, though Press Secretary Jay Carney did highlight several success? stories. "In Delaware, a small business owner found a plan that cost her $150 less than the cost of her previous plan," Carney said Wednesday. That particular example is notable because officials in Delaware told Fox News on Wednesday that they only know of one person who has actually enrolled at HealthCare.gov. Her name is Janice Baker, 59, from Selbyville, Del.
So Carney thinks that only one person in the state of Delaware enrolling is GRRRREAT news because she saved money?? What a clown. We should call him "Carney the Tiger" ..."We're Grrrrrreat!"
Now that a big part of the Affordable Care Act has gone into effect, there's a new crop of scams that fraudsters have come up with to secure unauthorized use of your personal information. You need to be aware of what the bad guys are doing and clear about what information should and should not be shared with strangers. Here are the most common threats:
PHONY ACA INSURANCE CARDS
IMPOSTORS POSING AS ADVISERS
MEDICARE CARD SCAM
http://www.newsday.com/lifestyle/retire … -1.6274218
If you believe you have been the victim of identity theft, you are not alone. According to a survey by Javelin Strategy and Research, 12.6 million Americans had their identities stolen last year, and the criminals stole nearly $21 billion.
Gee...Obamacare, a government program that is fraught with fraud..who'd a thunk it?
Brenda, so glad you noticed. You have made my day.
Is it working? No! Well... I take that back. After two weeks of trying to get into the website to do what the government TOLD me I HAD to do, I finally was able to submit an application. But, that's all I have been able to do. I have not been able to select a health care provider because the system for that part of the registration process is always "down". But, here's what's really sickening - even if I find a health care provider, they may not be accepting new patients. In fact, I started calling around and discovered many of the providers in my area are not accepting new patients. So, good luck if you can get an application submitted and good luck if you can find a provider who will take you as a new patient.
How sad. I was hoping for something positive.
MarleneB it's funny, everyone thinks Obamacare is going to be good for this nation it won't be. Your going to see more and more things crop up like what MarleneB is experiencing. Overall universal healthcare where we all go buy insurance is destined to fail, instead give subsides to hospitals/clinics for patients that are having problems paying or actually create some smart laws.
I remember here in California when our Surgery Center was told we could no longer give out free samples of drugs to patients, that instead they had to buy the drug. Many people thought this law was a GOOD law. But some like our patients saw it for what it really was. Instead of getting a small bottle of a drug they needed to take for 7 days, they had to go out and spend 175 dollars for a 30 day supply. Idiot law makers should stay out of things they don't know anything of.
Can't wait a month or so for healthcare insurance? You must be in great health. And yes, some providers have opted out of ObamaCare. But there is at least 2 providers in every area of every state and some have up to 7, like in L.A.
News of Obamacare’s imploding launch went from bad to worse Thursday: Healthcare.gov contractors say they are falling ill and “fainting in conference calls” because they can’t keep up with demand to fix the program’s glitches.
Soaring cost: The cost of the Healthcare.gov online insurance website soared from $93.7 million to over $500 million since April
Copyright violation: The Obamacare website has reportedly violated licensing agreements for copyrighted software.
Minimal testing: The site wasn’t even tested until less than a week before its launch.
Old technology: Technology experts are reporting that the federal exchange was built with “10-year-old technology that may require constant fixes and updates for the next six months and the eventual overhaul of the entire system.”
Nancy Pelosi complains: said the system “has to be improved,”
No accountability: Carney refused to answer whether anyone would be held accountable for the botched roll-out.
Designers distance themselves: Now even the designers who helped create Healthcare.gov have erased all references to their Obamacare-related work from their firm’s website.
Contractors fainting: “There’s a lot of frustration,” a staffer said. “People are getting sick, fainting in conference calls.”
Navigators frustrated: Other community organizations and nonprofit groups that had been hired to help millions of Americans sign up for Obamacare are now expressing frustration over the enrollment process. (Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN, is now participating in the Obamacare “navigator” drive.)
Tremendously low enrollment: Three weeks after the website’s launch, enrollment numbers remain very low. Washington state has only enrolled .36 percent of its population. Only .25 percent of Californians have started applications. Only .08 percent of Nevada’s population has created an account. Just .3 percent of Kentucky’s estimated population has purportedly enrolled. While 28,000 applications were submitted by Kentucky residents, page views were said to have exceeded 5.5 million. About 100,000 New Yorkers were said to have “qualified” for health insurance. Only .22 percent of Minnesota’s population has applied for coverage, but one-third of that number is said to have enrolled. Millard Brown Digital, reporting that fewer than 1 percent of the people trying to enroll in Obamacare had completed the enrollment process in the first week, released the following chart: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/10/health … funnel.png
Americans losing insurance: Also Thursday, Americans began tweeting their anger and surprise over insurance cancellations and the higher premiums they will be forced to pay under Obamacare.
Sebelius won’t resign: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will not resign over the disastrous Obamacare website roll-out despite numerous calls for her to be fired.
Sticker shock: The Heritage Foundation released the following chart showing that insurance on health exchanges will cost more than existing insurance:
“As we see the actual implementation of Obamacare hurt actual people, people that are herded into the exchanges even though they were promised they could keep the health care that they had, young people that will be forced to buy something they can’t afford and others that will see their jobs cut or their premiums increase, all of those real factors are going to prove us right and the Democrats wrong as we head into 2014,” Freedomworks President and CEO Matt Kibbe said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obamacare-tr … 2JcBghi.99
Need anyone say more? It ain't gonna get better - this IS the train wreck the co -author of the bill (and conservatives before it was even passed) said it would be before it launched!
US Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) recently
commented that Obamacare is a "train wreck."
This just in, October 18, 2013 - two people in Alaska have signed up for Obamacare...not two more...the first two...WOW we are on our way!
What's that you say? The government says 7,000,000 at least have to sign up for this to work and most of that has to be young people?
Over how many decades?
This entire thread begs the question:
Where are all the hubbers who've been out there blowing the trumpet in celebration of this law? Where are all our success stories?
Still can't get on.
Even those obamazombie hubbers know they can't defend a catastrophe like this, especially when it was predicted years in advance. But don't worry, they'll just become closet zombies cause once a zombie is infected with Barackteria there is no cure. Their brains are damaged beyond repair.
You would have thought someone would admit this thing is a disaster and shut it down.
Liberals never admit when they are wrong - if they can't change the subject or blame someone else they just don't show up for a battle they know they can't win so no one can say they were defeated. It's never about the truth with them, it's all about deception.
What is the disaster people keep harping about? The ACA is working great in California. Thousands of people have signed up and purchased private policies. Also, many of the abject poor ($700 a month or less) have gotten on to MediCal. So all is well is California....even the chief complainer, Representative Darrel Issa (R/CA) is being quiet on the issue for a few days!
Dr. Billy did you know there are 38 million people In California? Thousands doesn't seen too significant,
What are your sources for this success in California? (not that thousands have signed up, because that is NOT a success, you need way more than that). But simply that it is being successful for low rates, etc.
I've searched and searched but can find nothing on it other than articles back in May giving a projection of success. Not any reports of actual success.
Edit: Nevermind. I found it but, their figures are misleading.
"The figure reported is for people who completed the full application process and were found eligible for an insurance plan. "
The full application process is what you fill out before you can even look at plans. They consider that "signed up". It is enrollment numbers you need and oddly, they are not reporting those.
Oh but wait! The news gets even better out of Washington State!
"Washington state said 9,452 people have fully enrolled in coverage set to begin Jan. 1. Most of them, about 8,500, are going to be covered by Medicaid, the government insurance program for low-income people, with the remaining 916 covered by health plans sold by private insurers through the online state marketplace. "
Nearly everyone who signed up in that state so far are Medicaid recipients. What a surprise. Which is why soon, no one will be able to afford health insurance.
When is soon and would you care to put your money where your mouth is?
Since most people who are not on the medicare allowance are covered by their employers those numbers are exactly what was expected. Not alarming at all.
Also the medicare subsidy stuff is covered directly by the ACA funding measures meaning it has zero impact on the cost of insurance.
Israel instituted an almost identical similar system in 1995. As we know Israel has since collapsed economically and is now destitute and no one can afford healthcare.
Wait it rose in the US healthcare rankings almost 25 places? Huh. Well this is sensationalist rubbish then.
I'm already putting my money there! As are the rest of us! We're being told we have to.
I always love the words "almost" and "identical" when used as an oxymoron. Almost disqualifies identical. Which means there were differences. I will look into what they implemented though and all that.
No it is not covered by ACA funding measure, which btw require millions tof healthy, young Americans to sign-up to succeed. Not happening right now by far. No those numbers are NOT what they expected. Now you are just blowing smoke.
And below is the reason why you should research things and not rely solely on some "system" where the very indicators save one, that they measure is designed to make socialized medicine look great.
"Israeli health care ranks high in OECD, but public system still showing signs of distress"
These impressive figures from the OECD seem to contradict the signs of distress the public health system has been showing in recent years − and as Yair Lapid claims. But there is no arguing with the data showing a severe problem of infrastructure in the health system: Israel is near the bottom of list in the number of general hospital beds, 27th out of 30, with only 1.93 hospital spaces per 1,000 people.
the number of nurses is very low, 20th out of 22 with 4.8 nurses per thousand residents, compared to 11.3 in Germany and 9.6 per thousand in Britain. Israel has the highest rate of hospital occupancy in the OECD, 98.8 percent on an annual basis; which testifies to rates of well over 100 percent for almost half the year, again, well above the accepted norm in other developed nations.
Another explanation for the impressive OECD numbers is the high percentage of Israelis who have supplementary health insurance: 80 percent, said Israel Medical Association deputy chairman Dr. Yitzhak Ziv-Ner. “Too many [people] in Israel pay for supplementary insurance, which is gradually becoming an additional health tax above the general health tax. ... this shows the lack of faith the Israelis have in the basic system, which is not enough for them,” he said. "
I guess I'm going to have to put more money than I thought where my mouth is....in order to get adequate care I'll need supplemental insurance like 80% of Israelis.
One more thing - while I can't define "soon" this entire law is a grand design to eliminate health insurance and move to a single payer system. Reid already admitted such.
No I will not put my money where my mouth is.
Soon is just histrionic sensationalism it means nothing.
I don't understand my own post as I first quoted that too many people on the medicare subsidy are signing up and said they are mainly young then argued not enough young people are joining even though young people who are not on the subsidy are joining via their employer.
I still have not read the ACA legislation thoroughly and don't understand it. " CHIP enrollment process: Low-income individuals and families above 100% and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies directly funded by PPACA taxation revenue measures".
To clarify that those subsidies come directly from the funding taxes, not who signs on.
I do not know about the Israeli healthcare system even though it is the closest analogue to ours.
Israel does impressively in the OECD and UN despite being not incredibly wealthy. It's system scores far better than the US's but it is not as good as other more socialized systems.
And wind out with a conspiracy theory. (On a side note I hope that conspiracy is true)
Fixed it for you.
1. Reading comprehension is your friend. I did not say too many on Medicare were signing up. I said too many on Medicaid. As for saying they are mainly young...what? I said it requires so many young & healthy Americans to sign-up and agree to pay the inflated premiums in order to even begin to have affordable premiums. Which isn't happening.
2. Um..dude, it's called a search engine, reading, researching. Which is what I did and found out that the Israeli system is not the great thing you are claiming. I notice you just ignored all the issues it is having.
3. Read it and understand it. How about you? Do you even know what 400% actually equates to in real life? I'll wait.
4. What taxes would those be? Besides, who do you think is paying those taxes? Or are they taxes from the magic money dragon?
5. Not a conspiracy theory, unless you think Harry Reid is starting a conspiracy theory about the Democrats.
6. Fixed what? I stated facts & truth. You've stated your opinion and then don't even read the post correctly.
"n short, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., never really thought the exchanges would work.
He just sees the Affordable Care Act as the first step to a fully government-run health care system, something that could be easier to achieve after the glitch-riddled, problematic opening of the federal health insurance exchanges this month.
During an appearance on a Las Vegas PBS program in August, Reid said he sees a national single-payer health system as the natural next step for health care in America. Reid said the nation had to “work its way past” insurance-based health care, according to a recap provided by the Las Vegas Sun newspaper.
“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said."
Just got my Insurance Plan Update:
My private insurance is increasing 9.8 % due to taxes that will be included in my premium.
Q. Why am I being taxed more?
A. "To support the expansion of coverage, there are ACA taxes that will be included in your premium. Your premium is increasing due to ACA taxes as well as the cost of providing health care services. Your plan's new premium will be effective january 1, 2014."
Currently I am paying $444/ mo. Can't afford almost $500 a month. I am dropping it. I will not give the government all my info in signing up for ACA. I will heal myself, If I die, I die. Unless, I can find a job with insurance. Good luck with that. So, I will be fined for not having insurance at all. Its the principle of the matter. I'm being forced to help others obtain care when I myself can't afford it! Does that really sound right? really?
No wonder they want a cashless society. An under the table job would be best at this point. Or living under a bridge and not working at all.
Hope and change.
Ain't it grand?
Get ready to be told that your personal experience is anecdotal evidence that doesn't matter and conflicts with "data" that can be found on the Internet.
I see, well, the quote is directly from my Blue Shield Update Brochure which I received today.
Its the principle of the matter. Its called forced social democracy. Did the left really vote for this?
Is THIS what Democrats and/or liberals wanted?
well, you've got it.
THANKS for NOTHING.
no...that doesn't sound right if you personally have to pay almost $500 per month....is there not help for people who can not afford that premium if not covered via an employer...but then again i'm sure if you are forced to pay.....it would be a pain to have some civil servant determine whether or not you can afford the premium or not......gov't would have to define affordability somehow....omg
I am not covered by the public school district I work for, here in CA. The government ordered the school district to give their subs insurance of some type, so they referred us to Covered California: ACA (!) My husband is a flooring installer. He makes good enough money but not good enough to afford HC. The 444.00 was just for me. He has never had coverage, as he is self-employed and we are paying mortgage, maintaining our home and saving for retirement. We are lower middle class. We WERE doing just fine. Just fine.
My health care in Canada is about $500 per month (includes extended health benefits etc - not just the min. medical insurance). and that is just for me - 2 people are double that and a family (more than 2) around 1,500 plus. Luckily my coverage is paid for by my employer. Many working Canadians have no idea of what health care coverage costs are if their employer covers it. The premium for my coverage is cheap compared to those who work for gov't in one form or another here.
good luck KLH.....
...mine does not cover MRI's, physical therapy or blood work! (Which I found out the hard way.)
A government job might be the ticket. hmmmm. Just sell out completely. They are very hard to get, though.
by gov't...i mean all levels....including school districts....gov't transfers
....here anyone employed via gov't in some form have much better benefits than I do....and so the premiums may or may not be very expensive...who knows maybe gov't get a better deal because of the numbers...umbrella insurance...i'm not really sure...i do know the coverage is much better than what i get....i'm happy with my coverage so far...but then i haven't had a medical need that hasn't been covered yet....i'm sure it's in the horizon however........
Wait, wait, wait... I'm envisioning people fainting in conference calls. That's hilarious. But, seriously, if we're talking about Obamacare... it ain't gonna work!
We all agree don't we, that universal, affordable health care would be a good thing? No one is disputing that are they? If you don't think the ACA will achieve that, fair enough, but at least present a viable alternative. All I'm seeing in this thread is people complaining about the ACA. Not one person has suggested a viable, alternative solution that addresses the issues the ACA is intended to address. Not one! This is the issue in my view. It's not good enough to just say "I don't like the ACA". That's just unhelpful. Now I'm not interested in those that don't like the ACA on the grounds that it's socialist, or because it's Obamacare and they believe Obama is the devil incarnate. Both those views are idiotic. I am however interested in those who genuinely believe there is a viable alternative, and I want to know specifically what that alternative is and how you think it can be achieved. That, in my view, would be a more positive, constructive approach this the subject.
The ACA does not address heath CARE, it addresses health INSURANCE. It is 99% regulations, penalties, taxes and fees. It redefines full time as 30 hours, which is costing everyday working people and smaller businesses. We all know that the big companies will survive but business is also about the bottom line, so those that worked 35 -38 hours are seeing their hours cut drastically. Few are even hiring full time workers anymore because of it, and that hurts everyone.
If we're going to regulate something, I would rather have seen our time spent regulating the crazy profits on things like a box of tissues and aspirin that hospitals charge. The cost of hospital CARE has not been addressed at all with this law.
As for the insurance part, it would have been much better (not to mention have way less glitches and issues) to allow insurances to compete across state lines. That would have fostered REAL competition to lower insurance rates rather than the false promise of competition that this law created. In many states there is little or no options, driving the cost of insurance up.
This type of universal health care is not sustainable in the long term, even if it manages to climb up from the depths of failure it has so far achieved and be successful in the short term. A look at countries like Greece has already proven that.
Yes, the only way to effect health care reform is to address the private sector including tort reform - like Dr. Ben Carson said "ObamaCare is Not The Way Intelligent People Do Things!
Who in their right mind would ever even entertain the idea that the government can run the best health care system in the world ... and improve it? Ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!
The insurance is used to pay for health care (please note the use of italics to emphasize words rather than capitalization, which avoids the impression that you are SHOUTING)
Nonsense, the ACA mandates that employers provide insurance to employees working at least 30 hours a week, or pay a penalty. That prevents employers gaming the system by cutting hours. It doesn't "redefine" anything.
And the business mandate only applies to business with more than 50 full time employees. 96% of all businesses in the US have fewer than 50 full time employees. Of the 4% that are over the threshold, currently 99.8% of them already provide insurance. So the business mandate will affect 0.2% of the 4% of businesses it actually applies to.
In other words, the ACA isn't perfect. I agree. So why don't you give us the details of exactly what you would like to see in it, rather than just complain about it?
Laws are not set in stone. They can be amended. If the benefit of what you are suggesting can be demonstrated, then the law can be amended to include it. That's how laws improve over time, but you have to start somewhere. The ACA is that start.
The suggestion that Greece's health care system is what caused it's economic problems is idiotic. Do I really need to list all the countries in the world with some degree of universal health care that are economically stable? Stop scare-mongering.
Regardless, you hope you are proven wrong about Obamacare, don't you? I mean, you do agree that the best outcome is that Obamacare proves to be a success and benefits the country, right?
How does fining them prevent them from gaming the system? They pay no fine for cutting hours of employees, which is exactly what they are doing. The law clearly states that for the purpose of health care full time is defined as 30 hours. That is redefining full time providing health care, where previously only full time employees (those working 35-40 hours) received such benefits.
I did tell you what I'd like to see. I'd rather we address the actual cost of care, not insurance. And I'd like to see real competition, not government invented competition. It is real competition that would control the cost of insurance.
I don't think the government forcing you to buy something should be in it at all. It sets a very bad precedent.
The problem with claiming ACA is that start is that the Democrats & the President refuse to acknowledge all its flaws. Currently they refuse to entertain even any minor changes to the law. The President really missed a grand opportunity with this entire shutdown thing IMO. With all the issues surrounding anyone even being able to sign up for it if they want it, he could have come out and said, "you know what, the sign-up isn't going like we hoped, so we're going to delay the individual mandate until next year to be certain everyone is able to sign up".
There is no way it will benefit the country as a whole. It is an economic drain by its very nature. Nothing comes for free, despite what they are trying to lead people to believe. Someone is going to foot that bill, and it's going to be the average everyday working Joe. In a time of economic prosperity, the country could take the short term hit, realize the mistake, and take measures to fix it. In our current economic situation, it will turn bad into worse.
As for your claims regarding the percentage of small businesses, you are incorrect. Small business is defined as one with fewer than 500 employees, not 50. Your 96% number is the number of businesses with fewer than 500.
The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy defines a small business as one with fewer than 500 employees. As SBA says: 99.7 percent of the approximately 6 million businesses with employees are small businesses.
Sassy! Dam you for giving the impression of shouting! I guess imaginary shouting gives him the impression you are hurting his imaginary ears. Maybe he actually reads your posts out loud and feels compelled to yell (at himself?) That is certainly such an important point he had to make it first so Sassy, try whispering.
lol Honestly it was just for emphasis. I hate the formatting options for the forums.
You'll note in my answer I gave that point the attention it deserved.
1) The threshold for providing an employee with health insurance is 30 hours, for those business that are eligible. Studies like this one suggest that in 2013 the number of employees that work between 26 and 29 hours (0.6%) is virtually the same as in 2012; 2) just because a business says Obamacare is the reason it is cutting hours, that doesn't mean that's the case. Some businesses are using Obamacare as an excuse to cut hours. In San Francisco (a health care law applying to employers with 20 or more employees has been in place since 2008) some restaurants have been adding a 3.5 - 4% surcharge to to cover what they explicitly state are "health care costs", yet an investigation by the WSJ revealed that they have actually spent nothing on employee's health care, or only a tiny fraction of the money; 3) Less than a third of workers say they work less than 30 hours because of their employer's decision, but instead because they choose to work those hours for various reasons. 4) God forbid anyone should have to pay an extra 25c for their burger so the guy behind the counter can get decent health insurance! 5) Hoe much will companies benefit in the longer time by having a healthier workforce?
The desire for corporate profit is stronger than the desire to ensure people have good, affordable health care. That's one of the issues the ACA aims to address. The idea that "real competition" will reduce costs is nonsense. If that were the case there would be no such thing as monopolies, cartels, oligopolies, barriers to entry, price fixing, predatory pricing etc. As I said in one of my hubs four years ago it's not a question of regulated market or free market. It is a question of regulated market (by the state in favor of consumers, represented by many), or a controlled market (by corporations in favor of profit, represented by few). Human health is too important to be left purely in the hands of organisations who's sole aim is to make profit. Corporations have demonstrated again and again that they are not capable of making moral choices.
Minor changes? Like repealing it, or defunding it? Hardly minor. As for delaying it, that's just putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. With any major reform like this, there will be problems. I would be amazed if there wasn't. Even private companies have problems when they roll out new products, or implement new ideas. The point is that you identify the problems as they occur and fix them. Plan, Do, Check, Act. Look it up, it's a basic business management principle that allows for continuous improvement. It would be incredibly naive to think that any such a significant change would pass off without a hitch.
It's called the Affordable Care Act not the Free Care Act. The clue is in the title. You may think it's unaffordable, but the CBO have said repealing the ACA would in fact add to the deficit. Moreover the individual mandate was originally the idea of the Heritage Foundation back in 1989. In a document entitled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans" they said:
"[the mandate] assumes health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Second it assumes there is a contract between household and society, based on the notion that health care insurance is not like other forms of insurance. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate, but society feels no obligation to repair his car. . . If a man is struuck down witha heart attacj in the street, Americans will care for him whether he has insurance or not. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. A mandate on individuals recognizes this impl i cit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself (p.6, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Foundation)
Sorry, but you are wrong. In relation to the business mandate, the ACA explicitly defines a large employer (and therefore implicitly a small employer). You can find it on page 136 of the Bill:
"‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable large employer’
means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who
employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees
on business days during the preceding calendar year."
I wasn't arguing the businesses affected by the mandate. I was arguing your figure as to how many businesses are affected. It is not 96% that have fewer than 50 employees because the definition of small business is those with less than 500, not 50 by the SBA and that is where your figure is coming from. Or rather, the figure used in the blog post where you got that information. Their figures are incorrect because they did not use the proper definition of "small business" by the SBA.
This does not protect society from the costs of those without insurance. This mandates that society pay for those without insurance. You can make an argument that perhaps society was paying for them in another fashion. I can concur with that, however, this also mandates that now society is paying for those with any health issues (pre-existing conditions), anyone with a child aged 21-26 years, and a few other things. Previously, the specific group of society with those specific needs did pay more. No different than if you choose a different type of car insurance and pay more. Now, the working stiff, the one just over the threshold of poverty lines as defined by the government, is forced to pay more than they can afford to shoulder the needs of the few.
Further, I might add, that while those already on Medicaid or Medicare will be fine, the majority of physicians have already stated that with the smaller reimbursements for those services, they simply will not take new Medicare & Medicaid patients. It is not cost feasible. This now restricts the care for anyone just entering those plans now or in the future.
Minor changes like the tax on medical devices which even most Democrats are against. Which Reid was against until the GOP asked for it. Delaying the individual mandate is NOT a major change, it is a delay in order to attempt to fix all the problems. Do you really think they are going to fix all these issues by January 1st? Really? Not a chance.
Furthermore, it is odd that if the GOP asks for some change it is a major change, damaging it blah blah blah. But, it was fine for the President to circumvent Congress and make changes to a signed law (unconstitutional btw) with no legislative process by issuing thousands of exemptions. None of those for the average American either, but for all his campaign contributors.
I can sit here and quote the jobs report to show you the trend is from full time to part time work, and not by choice. Almost 8 million Americans want full time work but can only find part-time. Do you really believe that is a coincidence? If so, you are naive.
Just because you hold a certain opinion about a free market does not make it a fact. Certainly you need some regulations, but a market regulated to death, dies.
Make no mistake, this is set-up to put insurance companies out of business until the only choice is the government insurance. Then they can do what they will and the public is powerless to stop it. Reid has already admitted as such.
"The Las Vegas Sun reports that Reid made the statement during a Friday appearance on the PBS program “Nevada Week in Review.” Reid said that Congress could eventually reform the Affordable Care Act into one providing universal health care without relying on the private health insurance industry.
“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.
When show panelist Steve Sebelius asked if that meant eventually doing away with insurance-based coverage, Reid replied, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
http://news.yahoo.com/-harry-reid-says- … 01028.html
Better wake up and smell the game.
Oh and just for the record on the so-called "competition" that will bring rates down:
"An average of eight insurers compete for business in 36 states that had exchanges run or supported by the federal government last month, the Department of Health and Human Services says. (Idaho has since started its own exchange.) But just because an insurer sells in a state, it doesn't mean it sells in every area of a state so many residents have far fewer options.
Vermont has two, Kentucky has three and Nevada and Maryland each have four.
In New Hampshire, the exchange has just Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which greatly reduces the number of hospital options, says State Sen. Andy Sanborn. Since more than 90% of doctors are affiliated with specific hospitals, the new plans will also exclude many doctors, he added."
Just a few issues with competition, rates and availability of care.
The 96% figure comes from the SBA. To be accurate, it is in fact 96.31% of firms that have less than 50 employees, and 99.69% that have fewer than 500. The business mandate only applies to large employers, which is defined in section 136 of the ACA as any employer with more than 50 employees. So as I said, the business mandate is not applicable to 96% of businesses in the US. Whether those businesses are defined by the SBA as small businesses or not is irrelevant. I've put a link to the raw data below. Feel free to make the calculations yourself.
The ACA mandates that people take personal responsibility. Health insurance is not like car insurance. There is no a societal expectation for us to pay for repairs to your Porsche if you crash it and don't have insurance. There is a societal expectation not to let you die on the grounds that we do not like the choices you have made. E.g. if you got run over because you chose to get blind drunk, there is an expectation that people would not leave you to die by the side of the road, but would come to your assistance. That is one of the differences between a civilized and an uncivilized society. The ACA is a manifestation of that societal expectation, a codification of our values as a civilized society. It is not a political statement.
The "working stiff" as you describe people who are just over the threshold of poverty lines, could easily become the unemployed stiff, so to speak, through no fault of their own. At which time they themselves may need assistance. In my view, the ACA is about mutual assistance. Is there a minority of people who do not contribute to society that will benefit? Yes, but that is a price worth paying to help the majority who genuinely need assistance with their health care costs, and who, when they find their feet, will pass that assistance on through paying their own dues.
"a market regulated to death, dies". That's a circular argument, but I understand the point you are making. Getting the balance between regulation and a free market correct has always been a challenge, but that is something that can be tweaked once real data starts coming in about the performance of this policy. But you have to start somewhere.
For the sake of brevity I'll forego addressing the other points in your post.
*http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ … us(2).xlsx (Excel, 4mb)
Yay! My insurance is only going to be $210 a month. Thanks affordable care act!
I mean, this year I would have had to pay $65 to get a plan that's slightly better than what I get for over THREE TIMES AS MUCH!
The ACA worked for me!
Are premiums supposed to increase along with the individual-mandate tax?
My insurance increased in cost, a lot. I guess I'm in one of the lucky states where costs increased. Lucky me.
No, premiums are supposed to magically go down when insurers are forced to increase the provided benefits in their plans, and are forced to accept people who completely throw off their actuary tables and add huge expenses to their operations.
In other words, yes they are supposed to go up, but politicians didn't want to tell anybody.
Premiums go up and subsidies bring them down for the consumer, somewhere between 80 and 90% of Americans are eligible for subsidies.
Who pays for the subsidies?
I don't get a subsidy.
The subsidy comes from the PPACA funding measures which included a tax on people making 200 000+ a tax on "Cadillac insurance" taxes on Pharma companies etc. the whole list is outlined in a whole bunch of places so just do a google search.
Because I am extra helpful:
"Major sources of deficit reduction include: higher Medicare taxes on the wealthy; new annual fees on health insurance providers; similar fees on the healthcare industry such as manufacturers and importers of brand-name pharmaceutical drugs and certain medical devices; limits on tax deductions of medical expenses and flexible spending accounts; a new 40% excise tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies - plans with annual insurance premiums in excess of $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family; revenue from mandate penalty payments; a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services; and spending offsets such as a reduction in Medicare reimbursements to insurers and drug companies."
Basically there are a whole bunch of subsidies so I would check that carefully.
(As an example) If you have a family of four and make less than about eighty four thousand dollars a year then you are eligible for a subsidy.
A most interesting list of sources for additional money to make health care or health insurance cheaper.
A tax on health insurance - this will surely reduce the price of insurance - NOT.
Higher Medicare taxes, dedicated to providing medicare. Absolutely this will reduce health insurance costs for those not on Medicare - NOT.
Annual "fees" and taxes on medical insurance companies, resulting in the price of insurance going up.
More fees on drug producers and importers; this will increase the cost of drugs, hence the cost of medical care will go up.
Limits on current tax deductions for medical care, same for flexible spending accounts. Again, the cost of care goes up for those with high medical care costs. Good thinking, here!
Taxing unrelated services; tanning beds. This will indeed produce a few pennies. Maybe 10 cents per citizen? By taxing a powerless group of people they can expect their medical care costs to go down 10 cents per year?
Reduce the payment by medicare, transferring the cost of the care to others and thus raising their bills.
If this is typical of the fund raising/cost cutting measures (and it is) the plan is in deep trouble. But then we all knew that when legislators were not allowed to read or truly discuss it before enacting it.
Raising costs for people with plans worth more than ten thousand, the poor souls. Higher taxes on Wealthy people (does not increase health care price) Taxes specifically on non essential pharmaceuticals and medical devices (this will make breast enhancements more costly but cancer treatments cheaper as an example) and yes taxing tanning beds since they create massive amounts of skin cancer yearly and need to pay to cover the cost.
My limited experience with high cost insurance plans is that they simply decrease deductibles and out of pocket limits. Over the year, the net increased cost to the purchaser over a cheaper plan, considering medical costs as well, is near zero. That's then reasonable? To tax those with already high medical costs?
Tax the wealthy - always a wonderful solution to the socialist. Even if that tax is dedicated to something besides health insurance, it makes a good excuse - just one I don't swallow. Taxing the wealthy isn't always the automatic answer many think it is; the giant liberal rubber stamp of TAX THE EVIL RICH PEOPLE that goes on every bill in congress doesn't make it.
Who decides what drugs are "non-essential"? The govt. death panels? I'd rather have the ones insurance companies use - at least their motives are clear in that they want profits.
Tanning beds - should we not be heavily taxing all fatty foods? And quadruple the taxes on cigarettes, too - that's another politically powerless group we can suck money out of. Better hit the soft drink manufacturers while we're at it, along with manufacturers of every single item that goes in or on the human body. They can all cause harm if used incorrectly.
Look now you are just making this a discussion about whether progressive taxation is a good thing, not the point of the discussion try to stop covering irrelevant points. The question was what measures did the PPACA have to reduce insurance costs, I listed them, you claimed they would raise insurance costs, I refuted this, then you went off on a rant about socialism and progressive taxation.
It's cool if you want to do that but make your own thread.
Non essential drugs are any that are not necessary to keep someone in basic physical health. As in your life is not threatened (directly anyway) by not having a breast enhancement but is by cancer. It ain't complicated.
There are no death panels that were not there before the PPACA and frankly I thought better of you than to use such obvious hyperbole and sensationalism. As for who decides, qualified expert doctors decide.
It is my view that tanning beds tax is a good idea, the tax will enable the saving of lives, I believe a few extra dollars for a tan is less important than human lives, you believe it is not a good idea, but AGAIN this is not the place to talk about it, it's irrelevant to the point of the discussion.
With all due respect, can you name any current tax for which you are opposed?
You misunderstand; I don't necessarily claim that the cost of health insurance will go up. I'm saying that the cost of health care, which includes the cost of the insurance will go up.
You cannot tax medical drugs, supplies and equipment without the cost going up. You can't tax insurance plans or companies without the cost going up.
Out of everything you listed, only the tax on tanning beds will reduce the cost of medical care, including insurance, for anyone. All the others raise the cost to whoever is paying it.
If they really wanted to make health care affordable they would have cut the cost of that care. Reduce or eliminate malpractice claims and insurance. Cap hospital fees, along with the wages of anyone in the health care business. Let nurses earn minimum wage, with doctors earning 1.5 times that. Eliminate emergency air transport and limit the cost of an ambulance to $50,000. No elective surgery, no cosmetic surgery for any reason. Eliminate health insurance and make it all free, paid for directly by govt. Grossly reduce/eliminate all new drug testing.
These will all reduce costs. Of course, there is another "price" to pay for that reduction...
Oh obviously the plan is not to reduce healthcare cost it's to reduce consumer cost for essential services, thus there are taxes to fund that.
The taxes there are will increase the cost of non essential healthcare (as in plans that were worth almost 30 000 before are now slightly more expensive and so are breast enhancements but lie saving stuff will be cheaper). Frankly I think it's an error to equate breast enhancements and Chemo as being the same basic thing and say that because the first is going up "healthcare" is going up.
The correct statement is non essential health care services are going up.
Subsidies? You mean the government is paying for this? Where does the government get the money to pay for these subsidies? Taxpayers. . .us.
Just to clarify. It is not "certain" medical devices. It is "all" medical devices. So your claim of breast implants is misleading. Pacemakers, heart valves, etc. will all be taxed.
"The medical device tax is a 2.3% excise tax on every sale of a medical device in the United States, except for some consumer products like contact lenses and Band-aids, which are exempt."
Why not give us some figure? Are you talking about your policy from work?
I said the ACA business mandate is not applicable to 96% of businesses in the US. SassySue1963 said that figure is wrong because the Small Business Association (SBA) defines "small businesses" as those with fewer than 500 employees, not 50. She then implied I had gotten that figure from a "blogger". I pointed out that the 96% figure actually comes from the SBA itself, and provided a link to the raw data in Excel format (here it is again). So SassySue1963 is plainly wrong in this instance. The business mandate does is not applicable to 96% of business in the US. Of the 4% that it does apply to, 99.8% of them already provide health insurance.
I'm not sure how your personal circumstances are relevant to any of that. Did you reply to my post by mistake?
$210 a month beats the one Blue Cross offered me last year at $1500 for a single male.
My healthcare costs a few dollars less a month, not a significant change. On the other hand thanks to the ACA it is now unlimited insurance. So yes much better really.
About 100,000 people with pre-existing conditions were able to buy and use their new health care policy this last year. Some had the money and had been waiting in line to get insurance for 10 years. I think that is a success. I know a shrink who was able to get back to work--helping people.
I'm sure you'll be able to find people who love Obamacare. Can America afford it?
Can you name a single instance when our government was efficient? I'm sure, with a lot of thought, you can, but it requires a lot of thought. The health industry is 1/6 of our economy. Would anybody really put 1/6 of their income in the hands of a negligent, irresponsible person (government) who can't even come up with a budget? That's what Obamacare does.
What did Reagan say? "The nine scariest words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Lincoln did pretty good winning the Civil War.
Roosevelt did pretty good winning WWII.
Medicare works fine.
Social Security is the only income 25% of America's seniors get.
Going to the moon was good and the interstate highway system works OK.
Watch how defenders of Obamacare have changed their claims over time as more evidence has been brought to the table. Look closely, or you might miss it.
Obamacare will provide everyone with cheaper insurance
Obamacare will provide everyone with insurance, and the prices won't rise
Insurance might get more expensive, but at least everyone will be insured with Obamacare
Some people might not get insured, and it may get more expensive, but at least some people will get insured with Obamacare
If one person gets insured, it will be all worth it.
You forgot - go back to 2009 when it all started "if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E, the lie repeated over and over by the LIAR IN CHIEF and he knew all along it was a lie, anyone who read the bill knew it was a lie, just like everything said to pass it was alie - it's cost, it's benefits, the tax (that wasn't a tax?) - you name it.
Yep! Yep! Yep! And... let's say you get all signed up and all is good in Obama Health Care Land. You have medical insurance. But (get this) a lot of the medical facilities are not accepting new patients! Yeah, that's a reality, folks. Unless more facilities and doctors are added to cover the additional people being insured, a lot of people will be insured without a place to go get medical help. Who's going to address that little fiasco?
I've found cheaper insurance there than what my (Fortune 100) employer of 8 years has offered since they haven't changed the plan... since I started. So, it might be working for me later... no point signing up now w/ all that is going on and I haven't seen what my elections will be like for next year w/ my awesome company.
Found it where? on the healthcare.gov site? and it is cheaper than what your employer offered over the past 8 years? or cheaper than what they are offering this year? (which would be forced higher because of Obamacare) I find this hard to believe - what are the co pays and deductibles compared to your employer - is the coverage exactly the same ?- I doubt it. How about some details since you say you did the comparison - show us how obamacare is cheaper for you and in what state so we can tell others to check it out. Maybe you overlooked some important aspects of coverage and we can keep you from making a mistake. A second opinion never hurts.
I know somebody who will pay a lot more now. Her husband's company dropped health insurance because of Obamacare. Now, she will have to put her family on the school's insurance plan, to the tune of almost half her monthly salary! She's a teacher in a VERY low-paying area, and money will be very tight for her family now.
If it works for Canada and other places, it will work here. Eventually the bugs will get worked out. Our technologically savvy programmers have been busily designing the programs. Where is the patriotism of the people? We need faith in science, faith in our president and faith in our government. They will indeed deliver what we have voted for! They will indeed bring forth the change and hope we wanted. Nothing good comes without patience.
Eventually the US will institute social democracy. In modern society human nature is yielding more and more to the aspect of the whole and less and less to the aspect of the individual. The concept of the individual must yield to the significance of the whole of society and of nations. Especially in light of the global threat of technologically advanced warfare. Eventually, even the preeminence of nations must subside, considering the obvious necessity to eliminate all causes of war. After all, we are in this world, on this planet in the entirety of mankind. This truth and reality can only manifest without concerns for the individual or regards for national borders. Let us have peace. It all starts with PPACA. Have patience; the much contemplated future will surely be worth the wait.
However, those of us who would rather maintain our own autonomy, might have to move to the moon.
"Eventually the bugs will get worked out."??? it appears you haven't read anything on this forum - there are no bugs the whole healthcare.gov structure is outdated (thanks to your programers), they used 1990's technology and it can't be fixed, they have to start over. This government is holding itself unaccountable for everything they do. We have a Democracy, was the greatest on earth! We don't need your social democracy. "The concept of the individual must yield to the significance of the whole of society and of nations"? - why don't you crawl back under the rock (with Stalin, Mao and Marx) where you came from.
I don't know tsad, "The concept of the individual must yield to the significance of the whole of society and of nations"... "yielding more and more to the aspect of the whole and less and less to the aspect of the individual". Sounds to me like this guy is a jihadist - we should all be Muslim, after all worldwide there are more of them than us. So glad he lives in Canada and not the US.
I think we will all agree with the last sentence "those of us who prefer autonomy might have to move to the moon..." if social democracy is instituted and if the New World Order guys/ puppeteers (and/or jihadists !?) have their way.
It was a joke, son!
PS Look up the word a u t o n o m y ! A very good word, indeed.
You have an odd sense of humor - actually I'd say no sense of humor because your last sentence in context with the two paragraphs you wrote in no way implies your comments were a joke. "However, those of us who would rather maintain our own autonomy, might have to move to the moon" is actually an accurate deduction from what you said which in no way implies YOU were looking for autonomy nor meant your statements like "Eventually the bugs will get worked out." were a joke. But despite your horribly failed attempt at "humor" , if that is what it was you'd have to agree my response to what you said is appropriate and you demonstrated you are totally uninformed about the Obamacare rollout or was that part of your "joke". "Eventually the bugs will get worked out."??? Yeah right - praise your Canadian programers, or was that all a joke too? Glad you're not a socialist, or communist but just a bad joker - I apologize for not getting your "joke" but a little advice for you, I wouldn't give up your day job to become a comedian... c o m e d i a n - look it up.
As Obama said even when he was a senator single payer was the end game. I think that is why they went ahead with the roll out knowing it wouldn't work. That is why he won't fire Sebelius - she probably told him they weren't ready but he said go with it because if it fails and he is in power he wants to replace it with single payer. I think they all knew it would eventually fail, it was meant to fail, even Dr. Ben Carson said ObamaCare is "Not The Way Intelligent People Do Things" (I say - unless it is their ruse to take a step closer to single payer)
All i have to say give it time to work people I understand are still signing up till March next year.
It is clear that 54 million unisured Americans was unacceptable & this plan attempt to address that...
Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy.
Yeah right. The CBO said even if Obamacare works there will still be over 30 million uninsured and where did you get the figure 54 million? That is no where near the number of citizens who are uninsured - it is currently more like 30 million - you aren't naive are you. What you are saying is like building wings out of feathers and saying lets jump off a cliff to see if they work. Anyone with intelligence who has looked into this knows Ovomitcare will not work. Try doing some homework.
I'll leave you with this bleak appraisal of healthcare.gov (via CNN Money):
Experts say the major problems with the Obamacare website can't reasonably be solved before the end of 2013, and the best fix would be to start over from scratch. After assessing the website, Dave Kennedy, the CEO of information-security company Trusted Sec, estimates that about 20% of Healthcare.gov needs to be rewritten. With a whopping 500 million lines of code, according to a recent New York Times report, Kennedy believes fixing the site would probably take six months to a year. But would-be Obamacare enrollees only have until Dec. 15 to sign up for coverage starting at the beginning of 2014. Nish Bhalla, CEO of information-security firm Security Compass, said it "does not sound realistic at all" that Healthcare.gov will be fully operational before that point. "We don't even know where all of the problems lie, so how can we solve them?" Bhalla said. "It's like a drive-by shooting: You're going fast and you might hit it, you might miss it. But you can't fix what you can't identify." Several computer engineers said it would likely be easier to rebuild Healthcare.gov than to fix the issues in the current system.
There's no way the Obama administration would throw away several years and $300 million-worth of work...would they? That would be too painful an admission of failure. But the fact that experts now believe blowing the whole thing up and starting from scratch would be more effective than trying to fix the current mess is a deeply damning indictment. Tick tock, Democrats. What's your plan?
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ … aign=nl_pm
Ahh the fact checking as usual, always amusing reading your posts tsadjako.
Current uninsured according to the Census Bureau is almost 50 million.
It's expected to fall to something like 27 million under the PPACA according to the kaiser foundation.
So that would be close to halving the uninsured population.
The CBO found 30 million. That is still a reduction of massive proportions.
As for the Tick-Tock well I would suggest looking at some polling for 2016 not only are you getting crushed in all of the traditional battleground states (7% margin in Florida) but even states like Georgia and Kentucky are drawn. Hell Texas is only a couple of points.
Tick Tock to Republican extinction.
Try again Josak - I said citizens - US citizens - you do understand there is a difference between citizens and illegal aliens. Your numbers include illegals...you really think the taxpayers should be providing health insurance to illegal aliens? Well we'll have them send their bill to you. Nice try to tell the lie. Of course you only picked the one thing in my comment you could spin a lie about while ignoring the rest of the facts - that's all you know how to do josak, ignore the facts and spin what you can with deception. Good liberal that you are.
Let me introduce you to basic mathematics 101.
There are 11 Million Illegals in the US five million of which are uninsured.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commen … -uninsured
Now the difference between 50 million and thirty million is 20 million.
Can you do the math?
You don't stop do you - your numbers are wrong but again when it comes to illegals these are estimates and could be off by millions - nobody really knows so quit it - YOU LOSE. Anybody with a brain can see right through you.
SO your argument now is all the estimates which coincide across several studies by left and right wing organisations as well as neutral ones are off by a magnitude of 400%
That committed to being wrong huh?
No, my argument is that I wrote three paragraphs about Ovomitcare and you, propagandist that you are, picked out a tiny portion of a statement, and I quote "where did you get the figure 54 million?" to make a diatribe that has nothing to do with my reply to ole barry's naivete' or anything else being discussed. The facts are the estimates of uninsured American citizens not including illegals are around 30 million which is what I said and all the smoke and mirrors you try to throw out there don't change the facts or negate anything I said - but then that is exactly what we have come to expect from you when all you know how to do is avoid the facts and pick on some trivial statement to spin into what youwant to be a discrediting of he person who is presenting the facts you don't want to hear and can't refute...we know your game plan, give it up.
No I picked out a lie you told. You claimed data, it was a lie, or at best you being too lazy to actually look at the figures. Thus your post was misleading, so I corrected it.
I also presented the correct figures.
What lie? I said 54 million was no where near the number of uninsured US citizens (true even if you use your number of 48) and that the number was closer to 30 million and later I pointed out that any numbers used can be off by millions....all true. The number you use of 48 million isn't even close because it includes about 20 million illegals as you can read here - "The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is actually closer to 20 million, according to former Border Patrol agents who issued a letter this weekend disputing the count of 11 million that the government and most top private demographers use." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … er-patrol/ and I know you can read and you already know this but you want to discredit the other facts I post by lying and trying to convince readers that I am lying - an old liberal playbook tactic -you aren't fooling anyone.
So throw around your crazy percentages and make a bigger fool of yourself all you want because you are only entertaining yourself - no one (with a brain) is listening to you. You might as well be writing a fantasy tale. Instead why don't you comment pertinent to the discussion and tell us why Ovomitcare is such a great law...oh, I'm sorry, all the "great" things about it are now proven lies- you have no ammo.
Well Tsad, i gotta say out of the more than half dozen different posts you made on this forum topic the only thing Josak tried to make hay of was the comment you made about 54 million being inaccurate (and I searched the internet but couldn't find anyone who claims 54 million currently uninsured although who knows what the number is with all these companies dropping insurance coverage because of Obamacare). And your comments, including about the uninsured are all true. I think you nailed it when you called Josak out for what he really is which is in my opinion a close relative of the weasel family.
He said 30 million (I can quote it if you like) such commitment to being wrong on the right it's crazy.
AS fro Tsadjko's post yeah the 20 million estimate is laughable, not inline with anyone else's and still doesn't prove your point because most illegals have insurance.
But still unwilling to agree yuo are wrong even when every single fact proves it.
Ok now we know you are on drugs - who said 30 million? Quote it? here is the quote from Barry "It is clear that 54 million unisured Americans was unacceptable & this plan attempt to address that..."
and here is the quote from me which you have already misinterpreted by leaving out I said citizens (that excludes illegals) "The CBO said even if Obamacare works there will still be over 30 million uninsured and where did you get the figure 54 million? That is no where near the number of citizens who are uninsured - it is currently more like 30 million "
"more like" is not an exact number. I never said 30 million. More like 30 means as opposed to 54 - that means 40 million would be acceptable as it is more like 30 million than 54 million. I was never specific as I know these numbers are highly questionable anyway since no one really knows - that is why it is controversial and why you chose this to make a stand. You know you can throw a lot of smoke and mirrors at it and twist what I said while the obvious failure of Ovomitcare is too hard for you to confront.. So you still want to make an issue out of a number - while your pet law is tubing everyday, proving all conservative's predictions that this law was promoted by a pack of lies, will not work , is bad for America, bad for the economy and bad for liberals who love it because they will be buried with it.
Ovomitcare "is expected to extend coverage to only 25 million uninsured people in the U.S. as all of its provisions are implemented over the next decade. But ObamaCare is far from universal — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 31 million people will still lack insurance by 2023." Read it and weep deceiver. That is IF it works...it won't.
http://theweek.com/article/index/249318 … -obamacare
Republicans were saying the same thing back in 1980.
The non white vote has doubled since 1980 and is expected to double again by 2035 yet the proportion of that vote Republicans are getting is actually falling.
So yeah barring a big trend reversal that requires a big policy change it's pretty much inevitable.
Democrats control the White House and have a majority in the Senate. Republicans have a majority in the House and a majority of governors. The Republicans are far from extinct.
Have a majority in the house and states because of population distribution, have a look at the last congressional vote, most Americans voted for a Democrat Congress.
Don't you love our constitution? Each state, regardless of population, has equal representation in the Senate. Each state has its own executive branch. Ironically, the Republicans control the House of Representatives, the one part of Congress that varies based on population. Don't you find that interesting?
Actually yeah and I don't begrudge Republicans holding it on that basis at all. My only point was to demonstrate just how tenuous the hold really is, when you are in government with a minority of the votes your position is not a good one and certainly not a safe one and it bodes very poorly for elections that are not decided in this way (like presidential elections).
We're both largely saying the same thing. Remember that I said there was a shift in politics? I said that the entire country moved to the left. That's basically what you are saying, that Democrats are the majority now. That doesn't mean, however, that it will be the end of the Republican party. It just means that the Republican party will have to adapt and recover. It may take years. Look at how long it took the Democrats to recover after the 1980 election.
Agreed, perhaps a better statement would be conservatism as we know it today is dying. There will hopefully always be a conservative branch and it may be called Republican but is it really the same thing?
Yeah, I know, but the money always comes from somewhere.
Premiums didn't go down, it's just more redistribution.
Heck, I get to subsidize others. I'm not rich by any means, but I have to help pay for other people who are either less fortunate or have been less wise with their lives.
Affordable care act, lol. Nothing affordable about it.
It's sad that so much of the world now believes that theft is moral
Capitalists have made you believe that theft is moral for many decades.
At least we can always count on John to come along and redefine the entire language to fit his views.
Strangely, I have never had anything stolen from me, except by government, and I have never stolen from anyone. Even with all these years living in a capitalist country. I really must be missing something.
You are. Missing something, that is.
Government is not called theft; it is "redistribution of wealth" or some other wording meaning the same thing. Not theft.
That's because it is not illegal for govt. to forcibly take - theft is illegal.
But when capitalists redistribute wealth from you to them . . .
No capitalist has ever taken my money without my permission.
The government does every year.
If that is what you believe then I'm sorry for you.
Educate me. When did a capitalist ever take my money without my permission? I would love to hear examples.
You have worked have you not?
The fact that you have given them your money is no different from giving a mugger your money to avoid a beating.
Yes, I have worked voluntarily.
Your analogy is extremely flawed. You talk about a mugger who threatens me if I don't give him something.
A business has never threatened me if I don't work for them.
The threat of dire poverty never motivated you then?
But even if it did, it still wouldn't be analogous to theft. A business would not be threatening to take my labor or cause harm to me. Theft is when you take something that doesn't belong to you by force. No business has ever taken work from me by force. Everything has been voluntary.
I don't expect you can come up with any or many examples of businesses taking workers against their will either.
That's just an example of the government redefining a language. It's conditioned people to accept that the government forcefully taking form you is different than an individual forcefully taking from you.
Someone with a gun saying "What I'm doing is right", doesn't make it right.
Theft is only defined as illegal activity in the most narrow sense, and specifically because corrupt men in governments have created the problem.
Cool in which case every arrest is assault, every trial is kidnapping and every jail is a massive case of wrongful imprisonment so we should let them all out, after all those people never agreed to be subject to the law anymore than you agreed to be subject to taxation.
You should start a campaign to let them all out. Surely you support this? Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.
If one person attacks another, and is arrested, that is just.
If one person is minding his business and is arrested, that isn't just.
Government can only be just when it is acting by proxy of natural rights. It isn't moral for you to harm someone for no reason, so if you do government is justified in arresting you.
You don't have the right to steal from your neighbor, so it isn't moral for the government to steal from your neighbor by proxy either.
Unless your neighbour is a capitalist and then it's OK to be robbed by them
Nope. If a capitalist takes something that doesn't belong to him by force, then that's theft just the same as if you do it or I do it or the government does it.
They more you say the more you confirm that capitalists have made theft moral.
You still haven't given me a single example of capitalists taking things by force from others.
Is it only theft in your book if force is used?
I'm sure all those conned out of their money by confidence tricksters will be pleased to hear that they haven't really been stolen from.
It's only theft if one person takes from another against their will.
If someone is conned, then what they lose was taken from them against their will. If we agree that I will take your money and invest it, and return 50% of the profits to you, but I use it contrary to our agreement, then I have taken that money against your will. If I use it in accordance with our agreement, then I have not taken it against your will.
It's really a simple subject, there's no need for you to try and twist it or complicate it.
So all these people down the years who have worked and lost their lives working, then that's moral by your standards!
What are you talking about?
You are so vague. All these people working and dying are moral? I talked about theft, how can you take anything except for theft out of it?
And no, I won't guess what you mean by double standards. You're a big boy. Use your words.
Only vague to one who needs to protect his illusions.
Capitalists have killed many over the years and still continue to do so. They plunge many others into poverty in their thirst for capital to accumulate.
Is there any worse theft than the theft of a man's life in pursuit of profit?
Oh, I got it. Being clear isn't up to the person presenting the idea, it's up to the person receiving it.
Ok then, let me respond to your post.
Proved my point. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
You mean you know there is nothing moral about capitalism! Thanks.
I am glad to see you finally acknowledge that taxation is theft. Bravo.
It's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't need to protect his illusions.
Governments have made the theft of our hard-earned money moral. Then, they squander our money.
So now government does have the right to decide what is moral and what is not.
Since there is no agreed upon natural law.
And given such they DO have the right to decide taxation is moral (or rather the people have the right through government to do so).
Your argument is self defeating.
No, government doesn't have the right to decide what is moral.
Essentially, it's up to the people. Morals vary, and I believe in the non-aggression principle. Unless you are ok with someone attacking you or stealing from you, then you probably believe in it too(even if you won't admit it).
Of course this gets into moral relativism, and the need for a foundation. This country has a foundation, and it would be considered immoral within that foundation to do certain things.
In the end, the strongest people end up getting to choose what is moral. Ironically, as time has moved on, the power has moved from small groups to entire populations, which allows for the most universal decision on morality.
The funny thing is, in America, most people support the NAP, but they might not be honest about it, or they will be hypocritical about it when it doesn't apply to them.
My argument isn't self-defeating, because these morals I speak of are the morals that our government is built on. As it stands, we have a government that is inconsistent, due to irrationality and emotion. On that basis, many actions of the government are currently immoral(according to its own framework of morality).
Essentially, it's a bully telling little Timmy that stealing is wrong, but it's ok if he does it to Timmy.
Yeah it's up to people. I don't know about you but my guess is if tomorrow we had a referendum on taxation most people would vote to keep it.
End of discussion really.
As for principles the government is founded on that is A) Irrelevant the foundation of a government does nto decide it;s entire existence it is free to change B) Not an agreed upon proposition. Again you and I ahve a very different OPINION of what this government was founded on.
Consensus =/= moral. Hypocrisy is still immoral, unless you get the society to agree that it isn't, which they won't do, because nobody wants to agree to being on the short stick side of that.
Your claim of hypocrisy begins from a moral opinion. One that most people do not share. NOT from a fact.
IF the non aggression principle was a moral fact then maybe you could argue this but it is not.
The NAP is something that the majority absolutely want, but they are selfish or irrational so they try to make exceptions that benefit themselves(either personally or emotionally).
Utilitarianism isn't founded on logic, it is founded on feelings. Any logical consideration will expose that such an ideal is impossible to even attempt to apply, and it demands that you will act contrary to it when you try.
Nope utilitarianism is mathematical and unfeeling. The only feeling ascribed is the belief that suffering and death are bad and pleasure and life are good (not a typically controversial claim).
Other than that the calculation of what is correct is simple mathematics and pure logic. It is logically and mathematically the best system.
If people wanted the NAP they would not agree with taxation, you can insult their reasons (falsely in my opinion) all you want but you are still wrong in your claim of what they desire.
It's mathematical and logical to think you can predict the ramification of every action? News to me, I'd love to see your formulas.
What would you do in the following situation? 50 able-bodied men all shipwreck on an island. Two of the men immediately start to work gathering coconuts and catching fish, while the rest play on the beach. Soon, everyone is hungry but only two men have food, and they have a surplus. You still redistribute to the men who didn't do the work?
Yes the theory of logic is that you can approximately predict the consequences of your actions most of the time. If you hold that to not be true then there is no reason to do anything, you work because you logically calculate that you will be paid.
That is an interesting situation for a utilitarian. It depends on a lot of factors you have not outlined such as the length of time they are likely to be stranded and the capacity of the island to support fifty people.
As a utilitarian I would hold that the best solution would be to grant some food to those who did not work but not enough to satisfy them, thus they would stay strong enough to work the next day but have an increased incentive to do so. That plan would require modification as time went on and the consequences became apparent.
That would be my action given the limited information you gave me.
Do you honestly think that, on a scale of hundreds of millions of people, you can understand the consequences of even a single, small-scope action?
If it were possible to do that logically, then why hasn't anyone presented an incontrovertible proof of societal engineering?
There's plenty of food to support everybody, but the next day the 48 men still don't work. The two workers again have more than enough for everybody.
Yes, we can logically predict the effect of an action most of the time given what we know about humanity.
I could predict for example that if every news source claimed a meteorite was heading for Earth tomorrow this would cause widespread fear of a meteorite actually being headed for Earth.
As I said most of the time one can approximately predict the consequence of an action, experimentation is also important which functions via trial and error.
Even more interesting, I would simply allow this pattern to continue until it broke down, it is serving functionally thus far in providing the greatest good for the greatest number. I would not consider it a permanent or sustainable system however.
Ok, show me where anybody has projected every ramification of the food-stamp program. I'll make it easy, we only have to look 100 years into the future.
I think you will find, if you actually look, that the engine of the world is far more complicated than you think.
Ah, the food stamp programme, the capitalist way of dealing with its cast off's.
I would like to once more highlight some words I have used.
MOST OF THE TIME, APPROXIMATELY, EXPERIMENTATION.
I can't give you the exact prediction because I said approximately, it did feed people in need however which was the initial prediction. Whether that has been a good thing is a matter of opinion (mine would be a strong yes).
I contend that not once has a government actor even come close to mapping out even an approximation of all ramifications of a single action. Not once.
You are far more likely to disrupt a more efficient use of resources than you are to improve on it, as there are literally an infinite number of variables at play.
Opinion I disagree with, I could point to the exponential rise in well being, life expectancy, literacy, quality of life, nutrition, health etc. since the institution of such programs throughout history. You could argue these were tangential and unrelated but it's a stretch.
I would also point to an example the long term consequences of which we have had time to study, a large nation with an advanced bureaucracy and benefit/entitlement systems fell and so did quality of life etc. ie, the fall of the Roman Empire.
For your argument against the theory of logic and thus utilitarianism to be valid you would have to prove that a random action has a better chance of success than a planned one. I am seriously hoping you will attempt this as it will be amusing.
Those aren't projections. Show me the projections.
With an infinite number of variables, you can't hope for better than 50% actually. Then, you have to factor in that taking an action inevitably increases the complexity(yes, infinity plus one is more than infinity, to simplify difficult math into simple english).
The people who created the food stamp system projected it would feed people in their time of hunger. It did exactly that.
There is no infinite number of anything.
Me assaulting someone has a truly daunting number of outcomes but I can predict that probably most of these will be negative so I would not take that action. Same thing applies at larger scale.
It also stopped them becoming too uppity and asking "why should we be hungry"
Perfect examples of my point. Without the slightest clue of the actual ramifications, you fixate on one infintissimally small data plot and call it a victory.
You don't seem to realize that your victorious data point could be happening at the expense of a number of people approaching infinity. If you put it into dollars, you could be ransoming the fortunes of trillions of trillions of people for a nickle.
Sorry but this comment is a reply to a half line answer to John so I am confused as to what it refers to and thus unable to answer.
It means that pointing to any "success" is proving that you aren't actually interested in the greatest utlity, unless you claim that you have as data every ramification of an event.
In other words, an action that you do right now, redistributing the coconuts and fish, out of the goodness of your heart, or whatever the reason...
That action that you do to try and maximize short-term utlity, and it is short-term, because it's impossible for you to think in terms of billions of years...
That action that you do now could completely ruin the lives of trillions of people a million years from now. In trying to take from 1 to feed 99, you could be taking from virtually infinite people to feed those 99.
To summarize we have covered:
That taxation is theft if one subscribes to the NAP however most people evidently do not and the NAP is just a subjective opinion.
That the majority must dictate what is moral because there is no true absolute morality (and that therefore the majority is justified in judging taxation moral so long as they do not subscribe to the NAP).
That to prove the Theory of Logic and thus Utilitarianism illogical (which is actually a self defeating argument already) we must prove that a random action has a better chance of success (providing the desired outcome) than a calculated one in the majority of scenarios.
So I propose an addendum to the cry of "taxation is theft!", "taxation is theft if one subscribes to the moral theory of the non aggression principle!"
I really don't care to do a scientific poll, but I bet the majority of Americans would support the NAP in a blind study. It's the basic premise for everything that people consider their own basic rights. But neither of us can prove this without a large poll, and that won't happen.
You also left out the important part of a moral framework being consistent.
And I proved the flaws with your Utilitarianism. Any additional variables will impact every other variable at every other time-point through infinity. You proved very clearly in your posts that you're not interested in that, you're only interested in time-frames so small that they are effectively zero, so they couldn't even be used to calculate efficiency anyway.
You're going to hijack an infinite number of peoples' happiness just to try and feed 99... makes no sense.
You're right, there is no infinite number of anything(maybe, there is some really good math that suggests there is).
But, it's an easy way to avoid complicating things with mathematical jargon. The number of variables for any decision and its impacts into the future approach infinity. If you take the same scenario and introduce a change into it early on, then for every t approaching infinity, the number x of ramifications will be increased by a factor approaching infinity.
No they will be increased by a large number, predictably so. In fact you are predicting right now during this conversation, quite clearly proving my point.
I would in fact argue that the greater the number of people affected the more predictable an action becomes in a broad sense. Simply because populations have a relatively well known average reaction. on the other hand if you affect only an individual that individual could be a lunatic drastically changing your outcome.
As I said to do this you have to prove that most of the time a random action has a better chance of success than a calculated one.
No no no. The greater number of people affected, the more quickly the variations approach infinity. For every single added variable, it increases the complexity by a factor of the total number of variables. It's an extremely steep exponential curve.
I'm not predicting. The closest thing I'm doing is mathematically evaluating the principle, but I'm not making any predictions about the ramifications of an individual action. It's (virtually) impossible, because the complexity of evaluating the changed scenario is a slope that approaches infinity at a rate approaching infinity greater than the baseline. In other words, evaluating the change is infinitely more difficult than evaluating the situation without making the change.
I haven't proven it, but I have explained the math behind it. To be honest, I would have to have one of my math buddies do the actual proof, and it wouldn't really mean anything to either of us. I understand the concepts, but not the nomenclature.
Yes the precise outcomes become harder to predict but the broader ones become easier.
This is very simple to prove.
Say I punch someone, a random person on the street, the logical expectation would be anger and or fear. However maybe I just happened to punch someone who belongs to a cult of punishment for sins and thus welcomes pain and humiliation (there used to be tons of self effacing creeds in the church for example) I could not have predicted that without some afore knowledge.
If on the other hand I punch a million random people on the street the majority outcome will be anger and or fear. Therefore my predicted majority and broad outcome is actually more likely the more people I affect.
I can prove this mathematically if you desire (I studied economics so I can do the prof, it's not a complicated one however.)
Even the broader outcomes become infinitely more difficult to prove.
Your examples prove nothing, because you're still arbitrarily limiting the time frame to, essentially, zero.
Actually, your examples prove that you are more interested in the short-term ramifications, rather than the actual ramifications, which proves that you aren't really a utilitarian. You would be something new, call it a snapshot utilitarian.
No it's just that my example was a zero time frame example is all. The following reactions will also be more predictable than in the single person case.
Hypothesis:The approximate value of the average pairing of the following figures will be 3 with a margin of error of 0.5.
First test: single pairing:
pairing the fifth pair results in an outcome of 4 making the hypothesis incorrect.
Second test: multiple pairing all 10 pairs are combined:
total result= 31 divide by number of pairs:
Hypothesis is correct.
Those same people also predicted that food stamps would be a temporary policy.
All of which is skirting the central issue.
You must prove that a random action has a better chance of producing the desired result than a calculated one in most cases. I am still waiting and all you do is try to find examples that buck the trend ignoring the fact that the point is MOST cases.
Oh sad, what happened to the upset person who called me a roll?
Yep, more theft. Those rich people deserve to be stolen from.
It's no different than walking down the street to a mansion, breaking in, and stealing their things to give to someone else.
Taxes are theft and arrest is assault.
If the people through the instrument of government do not have the right to decide what is moral and what is not then no law or order can ever be had.
Of course the people have the right to decide.
Perhaps it's a semantic issue. I don't consider a hypocritical position to be moral. Ever.
If you say it is immoral to harm another person unprovoked, but then 'give' yourself permission to do so, then you are acting immorally. You might try and distinguish, that it's only immoral for others to do that, but it's still the same action.
So if society decides that individuals can't harm a person unprovoked, it would be immoral for them to set up agents to do it by proxy.
Again the definition of what is right and what is wrong (including the non aggression principle) are subjective and no I do not agree with it.
I am a utilitarian moralist, therefore if a person has a hundred loafs of bread and 99 were starving around him from my moral perspective the unprovoked taking and fair distribution of them would be the moral action because that is the greatest good for the greatest number. Now you may disagree and I don't expect you to convert but this principle you claim is universal is anything but.
So your claim of soemthing being immoral (like taxation) is merely an opinion not a fact.
So you have no problem with me attacking you for no reason?
I don't claim it's universal, I know there are many who would prefer a complete lack of morals/right/wrong. I just think the majority feel that way.
Yes, morals are subjective. We've been over this. No need to repeat it.
I'm claiming that something being moral is dependent on its own framework.
I'm peeing myself laughing at the double standards shown here.
This is very simple, there is no such thing as a natural law, I have very different expectations of what is natural than you and we in turn have a different expectation to someone else.
Thus the only method of deciding what is moral and what is not in a legal sense is by democratic means.
If you don't like what your community decided then you are free to go somewhere else.
The problem is, this country has an agreed framework, and the current government is acting inconsistently with that(ie immorally).
Do you think it's ok for me to take from you or harm you, unprovoked?
SO your claim is that the agreed upon framework of this country does not include taxation...
Even if this were true (and it is most definitely not) it doesn't matter, the founding principle of something does not decide it's continuation nor does change imply immorality.
The framework of this country(Are you in the US?) is based on inherent personal rights against aggression. Taxation is one of those inconsistencies. There have been many inconsistencies in our framework, some have been added, and some taken away. Inconsistencies in a moral framework are always immoral.
I'm still wondering, are you ok with someone harming you without cause?
I am not currently in the US (away on business) I am a US citizen. Inherent personal rights against aggression is again just your opinion, the founding fathers supported taxation as a principle so obviously an incorrect opinion but still.
I have already made clear that as a utilitarian I do not ascribe to the Non Aggression principle if I was the person with a hundred loafs of bread a day while 99 men starved around me (and assuming for some reason I was not distributing them myself) then even though I have committed no aggressive act I believe the taking on 99 of those loafs from me to be the moral course.
The founders also supported equal treatment of all along with slavery. They were not perfect, and you cannot take both sides of an issue and call them both moral.
I never said they were perfect but they did found this system so that is what is in question not their moral perfection. That is what this system was founded on.
I am at no point holding both sides of an argument. I have made it clear I do not support the NAP so there is no hypocrisy.
You are logically out of options in this debate as to win it you must prove a moral precept (the NAP) to be a fact. That would allow you to claim taxation is factually immoral. But you cannot establish the NAP as fact only as subjective opinion. Therefore your views on taxation are also simply subjective, unprovable opinion.
You said though, that because something is part of this system, then it is therefore good under the system. That's not true though. A system cannot support both sides of an issue.
Why can't I just come up and attack you and take your stuff cause I want to?
No I never said that. You claimed that protection of individual rights from aggression was the foundation of this system and therefore an action that contradicted that was immoral, have you abandoned that position?
If you attacked me for your benefit that has the potential of causing both of us harm but does not provide a greater good for a greater number so it is not moral.
Well, I'm a great investor, far better than you, so it would do more good for me to take control of your belongings. If I can prove that I would do more good with your belongings, then that would make my actions moral, correct?
If you really agree to that, you wouldn't object to me taking all of your money, because I could do far more good with every dollar in 3rd world countries than you could do with anything you spend here.
For $100 I can give a village water. You're using an electronic device to argue on the internet, when the money for that device could have saved hundreds of people from dying...
Correct. If you could prove you were a better investor and more likely to be able to help the greatest number then you would be justified in taking some of what I have but you would be a fool to take all of what I have as that would prevent me from taking more. (this is the founding principle of taxation actually).
Well I use this electronic machine to make money, and donate an awful lot of that money to the third world including my home country in the third world so I would argue taking it would be immoral as it does not serve the greater good and indeed harms it.
I bet nearly everything you purchase for yourself could have been purchased cheaper.
If that's the case, then I should be in charge of managing your finances, to maximize utility.
How much did you spend on your electronic device, and what exactly do you need it to do?
Well if you could prove that you were a better shopper than I. I run an import export company so my guess is that's unlikely.
I honestly don't remember. I bought the cheapest machine I could find that would run my email, VOIP, recording software and presentations. I bought it second hand.
Well, without going through receipts, it's going to be impossible to compare, but I can guarantee, with a confidence level approaching infinity, that you waste resources that someone else could use more efficiently.
When I figure that out, I fully expect you to completely turn over 100% control of your possessions, time, and efforts to that person.
I'll be over here enjoying my freedom
Actually I do exactly that regularly. For example I am aware my charity money is better handled by a competent charity agency than by myself so I turn it over to them to use.
If you can enjoy freedom that comes at the cost of the lives and suffering of others (indirectly as it may be) then good for you. Some of us have different moralities that expect more sacrifice from us.
Of course I would claim (as you did earlier of others) that your causes for your morality are selfishness and irrationality. How convenient that you have the moral system that demands so very little of you no?
You're wasting time here in this chat. That time would be far better spent on doing something productive that would create wealth and allow you to help other people. Far, far more productive.
Since I understand that, you should allow me to command you. I command you to get off the forums, buy some wood, and start carving birds.
My moral system demands only what I demand of it. The nice thing about that is, it doesn't demand what other people do. Yep, I really like that. I really like not telling others what to do.
Now go carve some birds!
A) carving birds serves no purpose B) down time is scientifically proven to be necessary for continued high function.
Uhuh sure, it's the not telling people what to do that attracts you not the contrivance of a moral excuse for selfishness.
Carving birds is a therapeutic, relaxing, non-intensive past-time. It would be far less intensive than arguing logic over the internet.
I'll market and sell them, don't worry about that. You don't have to worry about anything. I'll manage everything for you.
You make some awfully large judgements about me. Pray tell, how am I so selfish?
Tax the wealthy. For some reason, we have not only the right, but the imperative, to take away from them.
Don't take from me though bro!
by My Esoteric4 years ago
By the time the dust settles, there will be more than 7 million paying enrollments into the Obamacare program through the Federal, State, and off exchanges. It also appears that the mix of young and old, while not...
by Mary Krenz5 years ago
Do you believe that we are better off with Obama or better off without him and why?
by Rod Martin Jr5 years ago
What's behind the thousands of tons of iron microspheres found in the 9/11 concrete dust?There were 780,000 metric tons of concrete in the 2 WTC towers. I did not include the third building which collapsed that day...
by My Esoteric13 months ago
As the GOP told us many, many times that hundreds, if not thousands of counties in America will have no insurers providing coverage in 2018. Well, so long as they, and Trump, keep saying Obamacare will fail, it...
by Judy Specht23 months ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
by Grace Marguerite Williams9 months ago
Obama "care" for the most part has been a disaster. Premiums keep rising & for many, it has become exorbitantly expensive. According to the latest news, steps to repeal...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.