PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Obama, Stephanopoulos Spar Over Definition of 'Tax'


ROYC75
09-21-2009, 08:25 AM
ROFL Chalk one up for George ! Obo lies and deflects, On National TV.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/20/obama-stephanopoulos-spar-definition-tax/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.111898:b27830984:z0

President Obama and ABC News' George Stephanopoulos got in a testy sparring match Sunday over whether the president's health care plan includes a tax increase, leading the host to look up the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of taxes.

In the interview airing Sunday, Stephanopoulos pressed the president on his plan to require people to purchase health insurance.

"Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?" the host asked.

Obama responded: " No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

Stephanopoulos then offered the dictionary definition.

"I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam-Webster's dictionary: 'Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes,'" he said.

Visibly taken aback, Obama rejected the notion it was a tax increase and said pulling the dictionary out was a sign the host was "stretching" a little.

"No. That -- that's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama s

HonestChieffan
09-21-2009, 08:34 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3QqO8EXd-II/SrR_DzMR3-I/AAAAAAAAshg/5BCKKIUjrxw/s400/I%27ll-lie-if-I-want-to.jpg

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 08:40 AM
Wellll I'm for everyone paying their own way. you decide to save money and not get helath insurance. Something happens and the taxpayer is stuck with the bill. How is that fair to the taxpayer who is also paying their health insurance premiums and now has to pay for your medical bills also?

How is the law requiring drivers to have car insurance to have a drivers licsense analogy not applicable? No one is complaining about that.

ROYC75
09-21-2009, 08:49 AM
Wellll I'm for everyone paying their own way. you decide to save money and not get helath insurance. Something happens and the taxpayer is stuck with the bill. How is that fair to the taxpayer who is also paying their health insurance premiums and now has to pay for your medical bills also?

How is the law requiring drivers to have car insurance to have a drivers licsense analogy not applicable? No one is complaining about that.

A car is a mechanical devise that can kill and do bodily harm.

headsnap
09-21-2009, 08:52 AM
How is the law requiring drivers to have car insurance to have a drivers licsense analogy not applicable? No one is complaining about that.

it's not applicable at all! You are required to carry liability insurance... that's for the other guy, not you!

Hearth insurance is for the holder.


a better analogy for you is seat belt laws..

ROYC75
09-21-2009, 08:53 AM
FTR, this is a sticky topic amongst Americans. We do need HC reform and all people should have HC, finding out how to supply it is the problem. I don't care what POTUS is in office, it's a tough sell to the public to get it right.

To be honest, it's almost a poison pill on getting re-elected. I give him props on addressing it, but he needs to listen to the people before drawing up his own plan and submitting it.

Radar Chief
09-21-2009, 08:58 AM
How is the law requiring drivers to have car insurance to have a drivers licsense analogy not applicable? No one is complaining about that.

You have the choice of not owning a car. :shrug:

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 09:34 AM
it's not applicable at all! You are required to carry liability insurance... that's for the other guy, not you!

Hearth insurance is for the holder.


a better analogy for you is seat belt laws..
Thats my point. He/She should be forced to buy health insurance to cover "the other guys"(taxpayers) in case of an accident or an unforseen circumstance. Come up with a new health insurance plan. Like liability in car insurance. You crash your car, get cancer it kicks in but doesn't pay for Dr. office visits, medications etc. right now.

Why should the taxpayer be forced to pay for someones bad decisions or bad luck?

wild1
09-21-2009, 09:35 AM
You have the choice of not owning a car. :shrug:

You also have a choice of who you want to procure your insurance from, and where you buy it from.

And the government isn't trying to corner the market by putting all your choices out of business.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-21-2009, 09:36 AM
You have the choice of not owning a car. :shrug:

Correct! Making people buy something they don't need is pure mafia tactics.

wild1
09-21-2009, 09:37 AM
Correct! Making people buy something they don't need is pure mafia tactics.

the health care "protection" racket.

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 09:38 AM
Correct! Making people buy something they don't need is pure mafia tactics.
BS. Their "freedom" is costing me and you money. Why should they get a free ride on the taxpayers dime?

stevieray
09-21-2009, 09:39 AM
Why should the taxpayer be forced to pay for someones decisions?

that's the basis of the oppostion to current policy proposals..

KILLER_CLOWN
09-21-2009, 09:39 AM
BS. Their "freedom" is costing me and you money. Why should they get a free ride on the taxpayers dime?

Do you have proof of this? If they want to adopt a policy of not treating people that's fine but do not tell me i have to buy private insurance or you will fine me.

wild1
09-21-2009, 09:42 AM
BS. Their "freedom" is costing me and you money. Why should they get a free ride on the taxpayers dime?

the "beat up on the freeloaders" argument doesn't work since the whole premise here is to rob from those of us who pay our own way to cover the freeloaders.

Donger
09-21-2009, 10:14 AM
What if I choose to pay cash for my health care? How does that make me a fiscal burden on anyone else?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:23 AM
We truly live in an era of Newspeak and Doublethink with this.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:31 AM
What if I choose to pay cash for my health care? How does that make me a fiscal burden on anyone else?

Other than, I don't know, your family?

Donger
09-21-2009, 10:32 AM
Other than, I don't know, your family?

I'm including my family, of course.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:36 AM
Wellll I'm for everyone paying their own way. you decide to save money and not get helath insurance. Something happens and the taxpayer is stuck with the bill. How is that fair to the taxpayer who is also paying their health insurance premiums and now has to pay for your medical bills also?

How is the law requiring drivers to have car insurance to have a drivers licsense analogy not applicable? No one is complaining about that.

How is it fair to the taxpayer who gets stuck with the bill? Just stop sticking the taxpayer with the bill.

Our national govt doesn't impose an obligation on us to buy car insurance either. It's not listed as one of the powers of the Federal government in the US Constitution.

Lastly, it is not the same category of thing to compare auto insurance because if you damage someone's property and you don't have the money to pay the damages to them then that person is screwed. So you directly harmed them. This comparison is on the left wing sites and it's nonsense.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:36 AM
I'm including my family, of course.

Because standard procedures that cost a shitload of money can bankrupt your family.

That's how not having insurance can place a burden on somebody else.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:38 AM
Lastly, it is not the same category of thing to compare auto insurance because if you damage someone's property and you don't have the money to pay the damages to them then that person is screwed. So you directly harmed them.

*breaks out notepad*

So you're saying we have mandated car insurance to induce personal responsibility?

*prepares to write*

Donger
09-21-2009, 10:41 AM
Because standard procedures that cost a shitload of money can bankrupt your family.

That's how not having insurance can place a burden on somebody else.

No offense, but you don't know how much money I have.

Besides, the premise was "Something happens and the taxpayer is stuck with the bill."

I'm simply pointing out that that is not the case in all events.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:42 AM
No offense, but you don't know how much money I have.

I don't think that really matters, because unless you are a billionaire, there exists the real possibility that medical procedures can bankrupt you.

wild1
09-21-2009, 10:47 AM
I don't think that really matters, because unless you are a billionaire, there exists the real possibility that medical procedures can bankrupt you.

There also exists the "real possibility" that a 747 could fall on my head as I walk around outside today. Maybe we should require everyone to have crashing airplane insurance.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:48 AM
*breaks out notepad*

So you're saying we have mandated car insurance to induce personal responsibility?

*prepares to write*

No. It's to protect others from the harmed due to the other's mistakes or irresponsibilty.

The government shouldn't tell you how to protect your own health in your own private sphere. If you think a woman should not be told what to do with her body then why the inconsistency here? Here I thought liberals were for such freedoms. They're not....it's about controlling others.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:49 AM
I don't think that really matters, because unless you are a billionaire, there exists the real possibility that medical procedures can bankrupt you.

So file bankruptcy and screw the people who overcharged you.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:50 AM
There also exists the "real possibility" that a 747 could fall on my head as I walk around outside today. Maybe we should require everyone to have crashing airplane insurance.

Let's just require everybody to have health insurance.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:50 AM
Let's just require everybody to have health insurance.

fascism

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:51 AM
No. It's to protect others from the harmed due to the other's mistakes or irresponsibilty.

Wait wait wait... so when I hit somebody with my car, they have to pay for my mistake?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:52 AM
Wait wait wait... so when I hit somebody with my car, they have to pay for my mistake?

No you have to pay damages to them due to your mistake. It's an age old concept.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:52 AM
So file bankruptcy and screw the people who overcharged you.

Great idea!

(Assuming I never want a decent loan for the rest of my life.)

wild1
09-21-2009, 10:53 AM
Let's just require everybody to have health insurance.

There exists the "real possibility" I could fall down in the parking ramp here, and sustain a serious head injury. There's a "real possibility" that I could be comatose for 50 years and the "taxpayers get stuck with the bill". I think the government should require us all to walk around with crash helmets on, 24 hours a day. After all, there's a "real possibility" that "taxpayers get stuck with a bill" if I don't.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:54 AM
No you have to pay damages to them. It's an age old concept.

Ooooooh, okay.

So... when *I* hit somebody with *my* car, the government mandates that *I* own up to *my* responsibility.

And this is a good idea, right?

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:55 AM
There exists the "real possibility" I could fall down in the parking ramp here, and sustain a serious head injury. There's a "real possibility" that I could be comatose for 50 years and the "taxpayers get stuck with the bill". I think the government should require us all to walk around with crash helmets on, 24 hours a day. After all, there's a "real possibility" that "taxpayers get stuck with a bill" if I don't.

What an accurate description of healthcare reform... :rolleyes:

Oh no, Donger, the straw man police are here!

wild1
09-21-2009, 10:56 AM
What an accurate description of healthcare reform... :rolleyes:

Oh no, Donger, the straw man police are here!

You were alleging that no matter how wealthy someone is, because even a remote possibility exists that they could somehow cost the government money, everyone should be required to buy insurance.

Donger
09-21-2009, 10:56 AM
straw man[/COLOR]

Yes, a liberal using that excuse was inevitable.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:58 AM
You were alleging that no matter how wealthy someone is, because even a remote possibility exists that they could somehow cost the government money, everyone should be required to buy insurance.

I'm arguing that the individual mandates doesn't cost the government money?

Gee, and to think I called your previous post a straw man!

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 10:59 AM
Ooooooh, okay.

So... when *I* hit somebody with *my* car, the government mandates that *I* own up to *my* responsibility.

And this is a good idea, right?

You did not read what I wrote. And used a strawman. You're talking about the federal govt imposing this on us. That's not listed as one of it's specific and enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The point I was making was not what the govt could do at a local level it was to see that others not be harmed by your acts; to see that their damages get covered since you aer on a public road. That's fitting and proper for govt who owns that road and can deny you a liscense to drive on it if you don't meet certain qualifications.

Your not wanting to pay for a service via insurance doesn't harm anyone but you.....except to someone with a collectivist point of view who sees it as harming society. It's a private matter. You're trying to regulate people's lives and expand govt or the public sector even more which will lead to even more control over your private life.

The point is way over your head. You need to make the correct distinctions.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 10:59 AM
Yes, a liberal using that excuse was inevitable.

When a conservative exercises that error, yeah I'm pretty sure a liberal calling them on it will be inevitable.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:01 AM
The point I was making was not what the govt could do at a local level it was to see that others not be harmed by your acts; to see that their damages get covered since your on a public road.

I didn't know car insurance didn't apply when it involved an accident on private property?

wild1
09-21-2009, 11:01 AM
I don't think that really matters, because unless you are a billionaire, there exists the real possibility that medical procedures can bankrupt you.

This is what I replied to.

Because there exists any possibility no matter how remote that X may happen, everyone should be required to insure themselves against X.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:02 AM
I didn't know car insurance didn't apply when it involved an accident on private property?

It still has to be driven on public property to get to any private property. The point still holds though. It's protecting others from your inability to pay damages to them to put them back into a state as if it never happened.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:03 AM
This is what I replied to.

Because there exists any possibility no matter how remote that X may happen, everyone should be required to insure themselves against X.

Medical bankrupty isn't a remote possibility. It's quite common.

I thought you WORKED in a hospital? Am I thinking of somebody else?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:05 AM
[COLOR="green"]Medical bankrupty isn't a remote possibility. It's quite common.
So we should bankrupt the govt instead of some individuals? The way the other social democracies have going bankrupt or the former Soviet Union?
You want to increase the damage and spread it around more now?

What better way to have the medical industry lose money and learn a lesson if they're really charging too much.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:05 AM
It still has to be driven on public property to get to any private property.

So if I'm in a business' parking lot, I pull out of a parking space without looking and completely smash somebody's back bumper, car insurance doesn't apply?

wild1
09-21-2009, 11:06 AM
Medical bankrupty isn't a remote possibility. It's quite common.

I thought you WORKED in a hospital? Am I thinking of somebody else?

In a manner of speaking.

You said "Unless you're a billionaire". There are many people who are less wealthy than that who have no need to be forced to buy insurance.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:07 AM
What better way to have the medical industry lose money and learn a lesson if they're really charging too much.

Yes, by wiping out the financial livelihood of an unfortunate, usually innocent civilian.

That sure seems equitable.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:07 AM
So if I'm in a business' parking lot, I pull out of a parking space without looking and completely smash somebody's back bumper, car insurance doesn't apply?

I didn't say that. I just said it ensures the other person's damages are covered....and that's the qualification a state govt imposes on you if you want to drive on their roads which you have to do to get to any private lot.

Garcia Bronco
09-21-2009, 11:09 AM
Any amount taken by the state from you is a tax.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:09 AM
Yes, by wiping out the financial livelihood of an unfortunate, usually innocent civilian.

That sure seems equitable.

Who's wiping out who? That's not society's responsibility. That's the individual's. Not only that they are not all innocent.

And your using the word "equitable" here is in a communistic sense.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:09 AM
Any amount taken by the state from you is a tax.

Do you consider being able to take deductions from your tax burden a subsidy?

***SPRAYER
09-21-2009, 11:09 AM
:clap:

KC Dan
09-21-2009, 11:10 AM
This would be a mass redistribution of wealth and why is anyone surprised. It is exactly what Obama said he would do. Just comply, provide your bank information and STFU - you racists.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:11 AM
In a manner of speaking.

You said "Unless you're a billionaire". There are many people who are less wealthy than that who have no need to be forced to buy insurance.

So honestly, you're defending the rights of a small number of people who have enough money to NOT worry about medical bankrupty without any sort of health insurance, even though the VAST majority of them (probably every single one of them) WANT and HAVE health insurance.

These are the hypothetical people you're arguing on behalf of? That they should not be forced to pay a health insurance premium that they can very easily afford when they don't want to?

Tell you what, I'll give you that. I don't know why you'd even care about that given the many other practical ways this bill affects your life. But yes, if somebody meets a certain annual income level and they, for some reason, do not want health insurance, I suppose there'd be zero harm in allowing them to opt out.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:12 AM
Any amount taken by the state from you is a tax.

Parking ticket = tax.

Bus ride = tax.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 11:15 AM
How is the law requiring drivers to have car insurance to have a drivers licsense analogy not applicable? No one is complaining about that.


Wow. Did you really just try to compare it to a drivers license?

Just wow. :shake:

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:15 AM
Who's wiping out who? That's not society's responsibility. That's the individual's. Not only that they are not all innocent.

But many are, that's the point of this whole thing.

I get hit by a car and the bastard drives off, but I have a part time job because I'm a student so I therefore an uninsured, WTF do I do?

I have to declare bankrupt and wipe out any reasonable loans I want for the next decade because of something that wasn't my fault?

This shit happens all the time. Yeah, some people are assholes but we're talking about millions of people who did nothing more than be victims of earnest circumstances.

And your response is "that'll teach providers for charging too much!"

Get real.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 11:15 AM
Parking ticket = tax.

Bus ride = tax.


Correct.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:16 AM
Parking ticket = tax.

Bus ride = tax.

He said "takes" from you. He didn't say wanting to buy a service on your own like a bus ride which you choose to exchange your money for. That's a voluntary exchange.

Parking ticket is a penalty which is the result of your choosing to not follow a rule or ordinance. Another choice you made voluntarily.

Definition

1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
b. To seize with authority; confiscate.

Donger
09-21-2009, 11:17 AM
Tell you what, I'll give you that.

Thank you for finally agreeing with the self-evident.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:18 AM
But many are, that's the point of this whole thing.

I get hit by a car and the bastard drives off, but I have a part time job because I'm a student so I therefore an uninsured, WTF do I do?

I have to declare bankrupt and wipe out any reasonable loans I want for the next decade because of something that wasn't my fault?

This shit happens all the time. Yeah, some people are assholes but we're talking about millions of people who did nothing more than be victims of earnest circumstances.

And your response is "that'll teach providers for charging too much!"

Get real.

It's not the federal govt's authority to provide healthcare insurance or to mandate it. A central govt doing that is practicing economic fascism.
Your not making distinctions. You're putting things in the same category of thing as if they are identical when they're not. That's not logic.

And my understanding is that you lose credit for 7 years.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:19 AM
Correct.

Definition

1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
b. To seize with authority; confiscate.

Fair enough. You want to define it that way, that's on you.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 11:20 AM
Fair enough. You want to define it that way, that's on you.



It's not on me. It's on the dictionary.

I know you have a tough time with facts. That's not on me either.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 11:21 AM
Maybe if you wrote the dictionary companies, you could get them to redifine "tax" into something that you're comfortable with. While you're at it, maybe you can get them to do the same for "socialism."

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:21 AM
Fair enough. You want to define it that way, that's on you.

Wow, that is amazing Newspeak and Doublethink your relying on. Now the
dictionary's wrong on a non-controversial basic English word used for how long?

JohnnyV13
09-21-2009, 11:21 AM
You did not read what I wrote. And used a strawman. You're talking about the federal govt imposing this on us. That's not listed as one of it's specific and enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The point I was making was not what the govt could do at a local level it was to see that others not be harmed by your acts; to see that their damages get covered since you aer on a public road. That's fitting and proper for govt who owns that road and can deny you a liscense to drive on it if you don't meet certain qualifications.

Your not wanting to pay for a service via insurance doesn't harm anyone but you.....except to someone with a collectivist point of view who sees it as harming society. It's a private matter. You're trying to regulate people's lives and expand govt or the public sector even more which will lead to even more control over your private life.

The point is way over your head. You need to make the correct distinctions.

BEP, I would agree with you view IF we change the law so that people can't demand service at an emergency room even if they can't pay. Otherwise, people without insurance end up freeloading because they can demand treatment at an emergency room, then declare bankrupcy. Hospital emergency rooms all operate at a loss because large numbers of people don't pay yet the law requires them to provide treatment for everyone who shows up.

Donger
09-21-2009, 11:22 AM
Fair enough. You want to define it that way, that's on you.

Holy shit.

Garcia Bronco
09-21-2009, 11:24 AM
It's one thing to be intellectually dim like Gearoge Bush...and quite more evil for the President of the US act like he doesn't know what a tax is....this is lawyering at it's finest.

This is the problem with todays liberal....they like to change the definition of words as they go along.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:24 AM
Maybe if you wrote the dictionary companies, you could get them to redifine "tax" into something that you're comfortable with. While you're at it, maybe you can get them to do the same for "socialism."

Well, they have already redefined "democracy". Get out some old dictionaries. They eventually caved into to the popular use because so many stopped understanding the word. This is the left's insiduous abuse of language and Orwell wrote about how the corruption of language can be used to change a people.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:24 AM
Your not making distinctions. You're putting things in the same category of thing as if they are identical when they're not. That's not logic.

And my understanding is that you lose credit for 7 years.

Well Jesus, I hope I wasn't planning a family in that particular hypothetical.

You don't lose credit, your credit is destroyed. I wouldn't be able to take out a card at Home Depot with bankrupcy on my record. And when it falls off it still haunts your credit for at least a couple of decades. And that's just for freaking starters.

All because I was innocently hit by a car. Or because I had a particularly bad flu strain that I'm susceptible to. Or because I have a genetic condition that I have zero choice in inheriting. Or because any of these things happened to a dependent.

And again, your response is "that'll show those overcharging providers!" and "you can piece your life back together once it falls off in seven years.

I'm serious, you need to get real.

Garcia Bronco
09-21-2009, 11:25 AM
Do you consider being able to take deductions from your tax burden a subsidy?

No. I consider it class warfare...get rid of the deductions for some people and make a flat tax for all. But it could be considered a subeside

Garcia Bronco
09-21-2009, 11:26 AM
Parking ticket = tax.

Bus ride = tax.

PArking ticket is a tax. Bus fare is not. You don't have to take the bus. You have to pay the parking ticket.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:26 AM
BEP, I would agree with you view IF we change the law so that people can't demand service at an emergency room even if they can't pay. Otherwise, people without insurance end up freeloading because they can demand treatment at an emergency room, then declare bankrupcy. Hospital emergency rooms all operate at a loss because large numbers of people don't pay yet the law requires them to provide treatment for everyone who shows up.

As far as I know, based on current data, mass quantities of people were not turned away before the govt passed such laws. There were charity hospitals too. And doctors working out fees with patients offered gave a pass to those less able to pay. I'd rather we go back to that and have separation of state and medicine altogether except for fraud.

Our current set up in attempts to make if more fair has mainly benefited corporations with both doctors and patient's dissatisfied.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:26 AM
It's not on me. It's on the dictionary.

I know you have a tough time with facts. That's not on me either.

Wow, that is amazing Newspeak and Doublethink your relying on. Now the
dictionary's wrong on a non-controversial basic English word used for how long?

Holy shit.

It's one thing to be intellectually dim like Gearoge Bush...and quite more evil for the President of the US act like he doesn't know what a tax is....this is lawyering at it's finest.

This is the problem with todays liberal....they like to change the definition of words as they go along.

I'm not changing any definitions. I said if that's the one you want to use, use it.

***SPRAYER
09-21-2009, 11:27 AM
Obama right. Dictionary wrong.

Garcia Bronco
09-21-2009, 11:27 AM
I'm not changing any definitions. I said if that's the one you want to use, use it.

That depends on your definition of the word "any"

Donger
09-21-2009, 11:28 AM
I'm not changing any definitions. I said if that's the one you want to use, use it.

Well, which "one" would you like to use? Are you using an alternative dictionary?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:28 AM
No. I consider it class warfare...get rid of the deductions for some people and make a flat tax for all. But it could be considered a subeside

I do too. Patteeu thinks it's a subsidy. Shocking huh?

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:29 AM
Well, which "one" would you like to use? Are you using an alternative dictionary?

Yeah, I was inarticulate. I did not mean the definition was wrong, but that I think of something more specific when I think of taxes.

wild1
09-21-2009, 11:30 AM
But yes, if somebody meets a certain annual income level and they, for some reason, do not want health insurance, I suppose there'd be zero harm in allowing them to opt out.

Well, now we've arrived at what the point always seems to be with the left, deciding how much of the government's money you're allowed to keep.

It seems curious that you'd only like to tax people below a certain income level for not having health insurance. That doesn't seem very fair, wanting to tax the poor and not the wealthy.

Donger
09-21-2009, 11:31 AM
Yeah, I was inarticulate. I did not mean the definition was wrong, but that I think of something more specific when I think of taxes.

So does Obama, apparently.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 11:31 AM
Putting aside the fact that everyone with a brain that hasn't been washed knows it is a tax I'm going to reiterate the biggest political flaw that Obama made in his efforts -- he shouldn't have tried to sell this as something it wasn't because most people aren't stupid and know you can't get something for nothing.

If he would just come out and say this is the plan and yes it's a tax and no it won't be deficit neutral in the short-term but will allow us to have a system (citing computerized records and things that people can grasp as potentially saving money) in the future that is less expensive he would be winning on this issue right now.

Or he could have listened to some of the opposition ideas instead of just saying he was willing to listen to other ideas (with no real intention of ever seriously considering them).

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:32 AM
Well, now we've arrived at what the point always seems to be with the left, deciding how much of the government's money you're allowed to keep.

It seems curious that you'd only like to tax people below a certain income level for not having health insurance. That doesn't seem very fair, wanting to tax the poor and not the wealthy.

The extreme wealthy we've described will be subject to the surtax hike.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:33 AM
So does Obama, apparently.

Apparently.

wild1
09-21-2009, 11:33 AM
The extreme wealthy we've described will be subject to the surtax hike.

Who is "extreme wealthy"?

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:34 AM
If he would just come out and say this is the plan and yes it's a tax and no it won't be deficit neutral in the short-term but will allow us to have a system (citing computerized records and things that people can grasp as potentially saving money) in the future that is less expensive he would be winning on this issue right now.

Possible.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:36 AM
Who is "extreme wealthy"?

We've ALREADY HAD THAT TALK. JESUS. lol

Go BACK like 20 posts. Christ. I hate holding hands for people who can't keep up.

We were talking about people that can afford to opt out of insurance because they will not risk medical bankrupcy. I'm guessing they will at least have to be millionaires, but it's certain they'd be in the top 2% of society.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:37 AM
If you guys could see my rep in this thread. el oh el

wild1
09-21-2009, 11:38 AM
If he would just come out and say this is the plan and yes it's a tax and no it won't be deficit neutral... he would be winning on this issue right now.


I don't think so. Once he acknowledges that this will not be deficit neutral, they're going to have to start answering questions about how much it's going to cost and where the money is going to come from, etc.

Right now, while they are pretending it's not going to cost anyone a dime, they can just deal in emotion and platitudes.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:38 AM
I'm not changing any definitions. I said if that's the one you want to use, use it.

The purpose of language is for communication including of ideas. When you use a dictionary you're supposed to find the entry that applies to how the person was using it. It's called context. No other choice makes sense based on what he said.

Which one fits to you:

v. took (tk), tak·en (tkn), tak·ing, takes

1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
a. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
b. To seize with authority; confiscate.
c. To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).
d. Sports & Games To acquire in a game or competition; win: took the crown in horseracing.
e. Sports & Games To defeat: Our team took the visitors three to one.
f. Sports To catch (a ball in play), especially in baseball: The player took it on the fly.

2. To grasp with the hands; grip: Take your partner's hand.
3. To encounter or catch in a particular situation; come upon; discover: Your actions took me by surprise.
4. To deal a blow to; strike or hit: The boxer took his opponent a sharp jab to the ribs.
5. To affect favorably or winsomely; charm or captivate: She was taken by the puppy.
6.a. To put (food or drink, for example) into the body; eat or drink: took a little soup for dinner.
b. To draw in; inhale: took a deep breath.
7. To expose one's body to (healthful or pleasurable treatment, for example): take the sun; take the waters at a spa.
8. To bring or receive into a particular relation, association, or other connection: take a new partner into the firm; take a company national.
9. To engage in sex with.
10. To accept and place under one's care or keeping.
11. To appropriate for one's own or another's use or benefit; obtain by purchase; secure or buy: We always take season tickets.
12. To assume for oneself: take all the credit.
a. To charge or oblige oneself with the fulfillment of (a task or duty, for example); commit oneself to: She took the position of chair of the committee.
b. To pledge one's obedience to; impose (a vow or promise) upon oneself.
c. To impose upon oneself; subject oneself to: We took extra time to do the job properly.
d. To accept or adopt for one's own: She took his side in the dispute.
e. To put forth or adopt as a point of argument, defense, or discussion.
f. To require or have as a fitting or proper accompaniment: Transitive verbs take a direct object.
13. To pick out; select or choose: take any card.
a. To choose for one's own use; avail oneself of the use of: We took a rented car.
b. To use (something) as when in operation: This camera takes 35mm film.
c. To use (something) as a means of conveyance or transportation: take a train to Pittsburgh.
d. To use (something) as a means of safety or refuge: take shelter from the storm.
e. To choose and then adopt (a particular route or direction) while on foot or while operating a vehicle: Take a right at the next corner. The driver downshifted to take the corner.
14. To assume occupancy of: take a seat.
15. To require (something) as a basic necessity: It takes money to live in that town.
16. To obtain from a source; derive or draw: The book takes its title from the Bible.
17. To obtain, as through measurement or a specified procedure: took the patient's temperature.
18. To write or make a record of, especially in shorthand or cursive writing: take a letter; take notes.
19. To create (an image, likeness, or representation), as by drawing, painting, or photography: took a picture of us.
20. To include or distribute (a charge) in a financial record.
21.
a. To accept (something owed, offered, or given) either reluctantly or willingly: take a bribe.
b. To submit to (something inflicted); undergo or suffer: didn't take his punishment well.
c. To put up with; endure or tolerate: I've had about all I can take from them.
d. Baseball To refrain from swinging at (a pitched ball).
e. To be affected with; catch: The child took the flu.
f. To be hit or penetrated by: took a lot of punches; took a bullet in the leg.
g. To withstand: The dam took the heavy flood waters.
22.
a. To accept or believe (something put forth) as true: I'll take your word.
b. To follow (advice, a suggestion, or a lead, for example).
c. To accept, handle, or deal with in a particular way: He takes things in stride.
d. To consider in a particular relation or from a particular viewpoint: take the bitter with the sweet.
23. To undertake, make, or perform: take a walk; take a decision.
24.
a. To allow to come in; give access or admission to; admit: The boat took a lot of water but remained afloat.
b. To provide room for; accommodate: We can't take more than 100 guests.
c. To become saturated or impregnated with (dye, for example).
25.
a. To understand or interpret: May I take your smile as an indication of approval?
b. To consider; assume: Take the matter as settled.
c. To consider to be equal to; reckon: We take their number at 1,000.
d. To perceive or feel; experience: She took a dislike to his intrusions.
26. To carry, convey, lead, or cause to go along to another place: Don't forget to take your umbrella. This bus takes you to New York. See Usage Note at bring.
27. To remove from a place: take the dishes from the sink.
28. To secure by removing: The dentist took two molars.
29. To cause to die; kill or destroy: The blight took these tomatoes.
30. To subtract: take 15 from 30.
31. To exact: The storm took its toll.
32.
a. To commit and apply oneself to the study of: take art lessons; take Spanish.
b. To study for with success: took a degree in law.
33. Informal To swindle, defraud, or cheat: You've really been taken.

Bill Parcells
09-21-2009, 11:39 AM
Stephanopoulos must be a racist that hates blacks. that has to be the reason..lol..yes!

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 11:39 AM
This is an interesting discussion. I can see George's point on this but if a bill passes that requires people to have insurance and they don't then it is a fine not a tax because they would be breaking the law.

3 a : a sum imposed as punishment for an offense

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:39 AM
If you guys could see my rep in this thread. el oh el

It's painfully obvious, that rep in the DC forum is based on the different sides just agreeing with one another.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:40 AM
This is an interesting discussion. I can see George's point on this but if a bill passes that requires people to have insurance and they don't then it is a fine not a tax because they would be breaking the law.

3 a : a sum imposed as punishment for an offense

And if it's a fine for those who are freemen in a free society then we live in a tyranny.

This is how police think because this is what they do. I read in the local paper here that traffic fines have skyrocketed to make up for the loss of revenue due to the economy. Let's just expand this type of thing.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:40 AM
The purpose of language is for communication including of ideas. When you use a dictionary you're supposed to find the entry that applies to how the person was using it. It's called context. No other choice makes sense based on what he said.

I've already renegged.

I'm waiting for you to get past it so we can get back to the broader argument we were having.

wild1
09-21-2009, 11:41 AM
We've ALREADY HAD THAT TALK. JESUS. lol

Go BACK like 20 posts. Christ. I hate holding hands for people who can't keep up.

We were talking about people that can afford to opt out of insurance because they will not risk medical bankrupcy. I'm guessing they will at least have to be millionaires, but it's certain they'd be in the top 2% of society.

I just want to know what your specific standard is that will allow me to opt out of government health care.

Since this is intended to prevent medical bankruptcy, maybe you could look and see what the 80% level for personal income across all medical bankruptcies in this country is. Preventing 80% of them would be a great achievement. We could allow others above that income level to opt out.

I know what this figure is, but I'm guessing you don't.

Bill Parcells
09-21-2009, 11:41 AM
He's so arrogant that he wants even his ''friends'' to kow tow to his every whim..lol..

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:41 AM
I've already renegged.

I'm waiting for you to get past it so we can get back to the broader argument we were having.

I didn't see it. That post took awhile to write.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:41 AM
It's painfully obvious, that rep in the DC forum is based on the different sides just agreeing with one another.

Oh, I'm not getting any positive rep if that's what you think is happening...

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:41 AM
Oh, I'm not getting any positive rep if that's what you think is happening...

Oh well that's just crazy imo.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 11:42 AM
I just want to know what your specific standard is that will allow me to opt out of government health care.

Since this is intended to prevent medical bankruptcy, maybe you could look and see what the 80% level for personal income across all medical bankruptcies in this country is. Preventing 80% of them would be a great achievement. We could allow others above that income level to opt out.

I know what this figure is, but I'm guessing you don't.

I don't want to prevent 80% of them. I want to prevent every single one of them.

I don't want it to happen anymore. Nobody should have to go broke because they get sick.

Mile High Mania
09-21-2009, 11:42 AM
I think all citizens of the US should have 'access' to affordable health care for them and their families. I don't think it should be free and if someone decides NOT to pay for health care, then that is their choice. I realize there are people that cannot afford it and there are many areas that need to be reformed.

However, I don't think Obama's plan is the way to go... the car insurance analogy is weak, because as it's pointed out - you are supposed to have liability coverage for the 'other' person in an accident. Twisting that as an example for health care is silly to me.

I don't think anyone should face going bankrupt because they or someone in their family got sick. Again - there are MANY areas to focus on, they don't need to strip down the system in place and go the route they would like to take...

Donger
09-21-2009, 11:43 AM
This is an interesting discussion. I can see George's point on this but if a bill passes that requires people to have insurance and they don't then it is a fine not a tax because they would be breaking the law.

3 a : a sum imposed as punishment for an offense

This mandate is actually both a fine and a tax.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 11:45 AM
And if it's a fine for those who are freemen in a free society then we live in a tyranny.

Government passes laws all the time that has fines.

The point of this fine or tax is that if we set up "universal" health care but not mandate it people still won't buy insurance and will still go to the ER which will be counter-productive and we will end up paying more for them.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 11:46 AM
I don't think so. Once he acknowledges that this will not be deficit neutral, they're going to have to start answering questions about how much it's going to cost and where the money is going to come from, etc.

Right now, while they are pretending it's not going to cost anyone a dime, they can just deal in emotion and platitudes.

Politically they're getting those questions anyway.

And, in the process, losing people who find it remarkable to think you can cover tens of millions of people for free or that you can find half a trillion dollars in "waste" and not have any impact on the health care provided by the system.

Donger
09-21-2009, 11:47 AM
Government passes laws all the time that has fines.

The point of this fine or tax is that if we set up "universal" health care but not mandate it people still won't buy insurance and will still go to the ER which will be counter-productive and we will end up paying more for them.

Then change the ER law.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:47 AM
Government passes laws all the time that has fines.
That's not my point. My point is that you're expanding govt law to run our lives and fine us if we don't abide by it. That's called slavery.

The point of this fine or tax is that if we set up "universal" health care but not mandate it people still won't buy insurance and will still go to the ER which will be counter-productive and we will end up paying more for them.

Do away with laws forcing private organizations on who they must accept to treat. And let charity hospitals handle it like they used to.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 11:48 AM
This mandate is actually both a fine and a tax.

Which part is the fine and which part is the tax?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:48 AM
This mandate is actually both a fine and a tax.

In this context, I'd agree. It's social engineering and stealth communism but don't expert the tyrants and controllers to see it that way.

Donger
09-21-2009, 11:49 AM
Which part is the fine and which part is the tax?

The $$$ part.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 11:49 AM
Then change the ER law.

I am sure they would if they could. The courts have ruled on this and I believe the Supreme Court has as well.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 11:50 AM
This mandate is actually both a fine and a tax.

What's the point when you have to explain stuff like this to a crowd that sees it as something else?

Seriously, I've seen contributors on these threads claim that the economy may never contract again because of Obama.

wild1
09-21-2009, 11:50 AM
I don't want to prevent 80% of them. I want to prevent every single one of them.

I don't want it to happen anymore. Nobody should have to go broke because they get sick.

Let me know where the land of lollipops and rainbows is and I'll see if they need someone of my profession there.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 11:51 AM
That's not my point. My point is that you're expanding govt law to run our lives and fine us if we don't abide by it. That's called slavery.

Do away with laws forcing private organizations on who they must accept to treat. And let charity hospitals handle it like they used to.

Great we are all slaves because they do it alot.

I already pointed out the courts have ruled on this.

The $$$ part.

LMAO Well duh I was asking for something more specific.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 11:52 AM
Government passes laws all the time that has fines.

The point of this fine or tax is that if we set up "universal" health care but not mandate it people still won't buy insurance and will still go to the ER which will be counter-productive and we will end up paying more for them.

So taking away our health care options and imposing government health care standards on everyone is for our own good?

Because there's all kinds of applications of this logic we could explore...

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 11:53 AM
Great we are all slaves because they do it alot.
You're coming around to reality. We are partially enslaved. Obama is here to complete the job.

I already pointed out the courts have ruled on this.
So what. Doesn't make it right. The Constitution was written to keep us free. The courts using their powers to expand the state is more a sign of abuse building more tyranny as time passes. They're a part of the problem and your citing them is an authoritarian. Black robed dieties that must never be cited as wrong. You embrace this slavery....I will fight you for imposing it on me.

memyselfI
09-21-2009, 11:56 AM
Somewhere, Bill Clinton smiles knowingly.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 11:59 AM
So taking away our health care options and imposing government health care standards on everyone is for our own good?

Because there's all kinds of applications of this logic we could explore...

The better argument is that it will be cheaper in the long run if you mandate it just like car insurance. Alot of people here are saying that mandating car insurance compared to health insurance isn't a valid argument. What people tend to forget is that everyday there is single car accidents that leave people dead or badly injured so car insurance is also to protect yourself.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 12:00 PM
You're coming around to reality. We are partially enslaved. Obama is here to complete the job.


So what. Doesn't make it right. The Constitution was written to keep us free. The courts using their powers to expand the state is more a sign of abuse building more tyranny as time passes. They're a part of the problem and your citing them is an authoritarian. Black robed dieties that must never be cited as wrong. You embrace this slavery....I will fight you for imposing it on me.

The Supreme Court is enslaving you? LMAO

Seriously why don't you move to your own island?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:01 PM
Did anyone see Reid saying tax compliance was "voluntary".
Well, this was found over on Lew's site:

The opening paragraph of the Home Page of the Department of Justice’s Tax Division:

"The Tax Division’s mission is to enforce the nation’s tax laws fully, fairly, and consistently, through both criminal and civil litigation, in order to promote voluntary compliance with the tax laws, maintain public confidence in the integrity of the tax system, and promote the sound development of the law."


http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/index.html


:shake: ROFL

mlyonsd
09-21-2009, 12:03 PM
I was listening and stopped what I was doing when the exchange took place. It was rather funny to watch George with a WTF look on his face when Obama clearly was stretching to avoid the tax issue.

How will this fine be administered and who's going to be keeping track? When do you pay it? At the time you need medical services or will there be auditors going through your records?

What about illegals? Do we fine them if they visit the hospital?

The whole thing sounds hokey to me.

mlyonsd
09-21-2009, 12:04 PM
The Supreme Court is enslaving you? LMAO

Seriously why don't you move to your own island?

France. I think she should go to France.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 12:05 PM
Let me know where the land of lollipops and rainbows is and I'll see if they need someone of my profession there.

It's in the HELP committee.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 12:05 PM
The better argument is that it will be cheaper in the long run if you mandate it just like car insurance. Alot of people here are saying that mandating car insurance compared to health insurance isn't a valid argument. What people tend to forget is that everyday there is single car accidents that leave people dead or badly injured so car insurance is also to protect yourself.

I understand your reasoning but it's flawed in a host of ways.

The IRS isn't involved in your acquisition (or lack thereof) of car insurance.

There are no caps or subsidies for poor people to buy car insurance.

If you want to use that analogy then people who don't have health insurance must get it on their own and suffer the consequences when they don't -- just like people who get into car accidents without insurance. They get sued by the insurance companies (not penalized by the government) that have to cover the costs.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:05 PM
The Supreme Court is enslaving you? LMAO

Seriously why don't you move to your own island?

Yes, I understand how collectivists would have a hard time dealing with individual dissent over that statement. We must worship the black robed dieties of the state.

The SC is NOT the final arbiter of all things Constitutional under a Jeffersonian interpretation. The legislature can repeal the law and should when the SC is out of line.

Let's face it dirk, you're no advocate of individual liberty.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:07 PM
France. I think she should go to France.

ROFL I am going to France next Spring on a field trip with my daughter. We're into the French Revolution and the fine dining it brought us.

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 12:09 PM
How is it fair to the taxpayer who gets stuck with the bill? Just stop sticking the taxpayer with the bill.

Our national govt doesn't impose an obligation on us to buy car insurance either. It's not listed as one of the powers of the Federal government in the US Constitution.

Lastly, it is not the same category of thing to compare auto insurance because if you damage someone's property and you don't have the money to pay the damages to them then that person is screwed. So you directly harmed them. This comparison is on the left wing sites and it's nonsense.
Someone has to pay. You think hospitals/doctors are going to just write it off? They pass those costs on to the insured or the government pays them. There are no freebies. Someone is paying and right now its the taxpayers and the insured. It's time for the uninsured to pay for their own health care.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:13 PM
Someone has to pay. You think hospitals/doctors are going to just write it off?

No I don't. They will pass it off if they can. I'd rather that be done by a market choice and let consumers sort it out though instead of a fascist govt mandate. We should still haveseparation of state and medicine, except for fraud. In the past when it was like that charity hospitals helped them out. Doctors forgave fees and helped on their own.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 12:14 PM
I understand your reasoning but it's flawed in a host of ways.

The IRS isn't involved in your acquisition (or lack thereof) of car insurance.

There are no caps or subsidies for poor people to buy car insurance.

If you want to use that analogy then people who don't have health insurance must get it on their own and suffer the consequences when they don't -- just like people who get into car accidents without insurance. They get sued by the insurance companies (not penalized by the government) that have to cover the costs whether they like it or not.

You are wrong on car insurance laws. In most states they will fine you, suspend or take away your drivers license and in some states you can go to jail.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 12:15 PM
I don't want to prevent 80% of them. I want to prevent every single one of them.

I don't want it to happen anymore. Nobody should have to go broke because they get sick.

Since you're making the laws and conditions for when it's acceptable for people to/not to go broke, perhaps you could enlighten us on when it's acceptable for someone to go broke?

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 12:16 PM
You are wrong on car insurance laws. In most states they will fine you, suspend or take away your drivers license and in some states you can go to jail.

I'm dealing with a friend who got into an accident without insurance and is now the defendant in a case against State Farm for close to $25,000.

Also, even if a specific state does the things you say how is that similar to providing free car insurance to those who can't afford it?

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 12:18 PM
Yes, I understand how collectivists would have a hard time dealing with individual dissent over that statement. We must worship the black robed dieties of the state.

The SC is NOT the final arbiter of all things Constitutional under a Jeffersonian interpretation. The legislature can repeal the law and should when the SC is out of line.

Let's face it dirk, you're no advocate of individual liberty.

I am all for individual liberty but I also believe that certain things the government should mandate or provide. But you seem to think or want that everyone should just do as they please and have no laws or anything.

Saul Good had a good proposal about having the government provide cheap catastrophic insurance. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 12:23 PM
I am all for individual liberty but I also believe that certain things the government should mandate or provide. But you seem to think or want that everyone should just do as they please and have no laws or anything.

Saul Good had a good proposal about having the government provide cheap catastrophic insurance. I wouldn't have a problem with that.


I proposed that early in the thread. Some kind of new health insurance that covers a major surgery or cancer but doesn't provide for office visits, medications etc.

I still haven't heard why the taxpayer should pay the medical bills of the uninsured?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:23 PM
I am all for individual liberty but I also believe that certain things the government should mandate or provide.
That's a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron and cognitive dissonance regarding liberty.

But you seem to think or want that everyone should just do as they please and have no laws or anything.
That's a strawman and sweeping generality. I don't think the govt should provide for people, certainly not the Federal govt. And there is no Constitutional authority for it either. Including for Saul's proposal.

That's not the same as " no " laws. I believe in the supreme law which is our Constitution which restricts the Federal govt because it's powers are state to be "specific and enumerated" Following that protects liberty. You don't believe in that law because of what you advocate.

You are expanding the state when we are already under the heavy burden of excessive laws. Govt restricts liberty. Sorry but that's just a fact.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 12:23 PM
I'm dealing with a friend who got into an accident without insurance and is now the defendant in a case against State Farm for close to $25,000.

Also, even if a specific state does the things you say how is that similar to providing free car insurance to those who can't afford it?

Your point was the government has no stake or fines in place for not having car insurance. All states have some sort of punishment for that. And yes when you get into an accident like your friend did you are also civilly liable as well.

The answer to your second question comes down to whether you believe health care is a right or not. You don't have any right to drive it is a privilege. Is health care a right or a privilege? The courts have said it is a right especially in the ER.

Donger
09-21-2009, 12:25 PM
I still haven't heard why the taxpayer should pay the medical bills of the uninsured?

Wait, you think that's a bad thing, right?

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:26 PM
Your point was the government has no stake or fines in place for not having car insurance. All states have some sort of punishment for that. And yes when you get into an accident like your friend did you are also civilly liable as well.

Which govt though....where? That is the question. Please make distinctions.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 12:29 PM
Since you're making the laws and conditions for when it's acceptable for people to/not to go broke, perhaps you could enlighten us on when it's acceptable for someone to go broke?

Nobody should go broke because they get sick.

If you think they should... well, that's one of many reasons why conservatives lost the election.

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 12:30 PM
Which govt though....where? That is the question. Please make distinctions.

In the case of car insurance state government.

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 12:31 PM
Wait, you think that's a bad thing, right?of course. If you don't want to make them have health insurance, you going to deny them care if their gamble turns out badly? They are going to die if they don't get to a hospital? Sorry, you don't have insurance. Just die, it was your decision. Thats never going to happen, so what to do now? Right now its the taxpayer and the insured picking up the their medical bills. Whats your solution?

I also think illegal immigrants shouldn't be getting free health care in the ER. If we want to provide humanitarian care, fine, they should have to go to some federal run clinic for help, unless its a true life threatining emergency.

Donger
09-21-2009, 12:32 PM
Nobody should go broke because they get sick.

If you think they should... well, that's one of many reasons why conservatives lost the election.

Why didn't you answer the question?

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 12:35 PM
Why didn't you answer the question?

Because it's an incredibly simple question with an incredibly complex answer.

For now, it's enough for me to say that I oppose people going broke because of healthcare.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:35 PM
We have had less healthcare options while costs have exploded since the govt got involved in medicine. Govts lie about it.

Milton Friedman studied the history of healthcare supply in America. In a 1992 study published by the Hoover Institution, entitled "Input and Output in Health Care," Friedman noted that 56 percent of all hospitals in America were privately owned and for-profit in 1910.

After 60 years of subsidies for government-run hospitals, the number had fallen to about 10 percent. It took decades, but by the early 1990s government had taken over almost the entire hospital industry.

That small portion of the industry that remains for-profit is regulated in an extraordinarily heavy way by federal, state and local governments so that many (perhaps most) of the decisions made by hospital administrators have to do with regulatory compliance as opposed to patient/customer service in pursuit of profit. It is profit, of course, that is necessary for private-sector hospitals to have the wherewithal to pay for healthcare.

Friedman's key conclusion was that, as with all governmental bureaucratic systems, government-owned or -controlled healthcare created a situation whereby increased "inputs," such as expenditures on equipment, infrastructure, and the salaries of medical professionals, actually led to decreased "outputs" in terms of the quantity of medical care.

For example, while medical expenditures rose by 224 percent from 1965–1989, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population fell by 44 percent and the number of beds occupied declined by 15 percent. Also during this time of almost complete governmental domination of the hospital industry (1944–1989), costs per patient-day rose almost 24-fold after inflation is taken into account.

The more money that has been spent on government-run healthcare, the less healthcare we have gotten.
Socialized Medicine vs the Laws of Economics (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo175.html)

Donger
09-21-2009, 12:36 PM
Because it's an incredibly simple question with an incredibly complex answer.

Okay, I look forward to the complex answer.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 12:37 PM
The answer to your second question comes down to whether you believe health care is a right or not. You don't have any right to drive it is a privilege. Is health care a right or a privilege? The courts have said it is a right especially in the ER.

It's not a right though. It's a good.

It being treated as a right is making it unaffordable. If it's a right it's a created one by law not a fundamental inalienable right. It's one created by judicial activisim by leftists judges.

Donger
09-21-2009, 12:37 PM
of course. If you don't want to make them have health insurance, you going to deny them care if their gamble turns out badly? They are going to die if they don't get to a hospital? Sorry, you don't have insurance. Just die, it was your decision. Thats never going to happen, so what to do now? Right now its the taxpayer and the insured picking up the their medical bills. Whats your solution?

I also think illegal immigrants shouldn't be getting free health care in the ER. If we want to provide humanitarian care, fine, they should have to go to some federal run clinic for help, unless its a true life threatining emergency.

I was under the impression that you support the health care legislation presently working its way through Congress. Is that incorrect?

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 12:42 PM
I proposed that early in the thread. Some kind of new health insurance that covers a major surgery or cancer but doesn't provide for office visits, medications etc.

I still haven't heard why the taxpayer should pay the medical bills of the uninsured?


And you won't.

Everyone is, not surprisingly, using the car insurance analogy on television this morning. Someone on the Obamacare team obviously came up with that one over the weekend. :rolleyes:

I also just heard Dem strategist Julian Epstein say that Obamacare should be "something that conservatives should be familiar with -- it's called personal responsiblity so you don't put your costs onto the rest of society...this is a tax cut for most Americans."

I'm not joking.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 12:42 PM
I am all for individual liberty

No you're not. You believe in egalatarianism. That's different than individual liberty. You believe rich people should be taxed in order to provide "equality" for poor people. That's not believing in individual liberty.

You believe in mandates. That's not believing in individual liberty. That's believing that government knows better than people do about what is good for them.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 12:44 PM
Your point was the government has no stake or fines in place for not having car insurance.

I don't think I said that...

Is health care a right or a privilege? The courts have said it is a right especially in the ER.

That's not exactly what the courts have said.

mlyonsd
09-21-2009, 12:45 PM
And you won't.

Everyone is, not surprisingly, using the car insurance analogy on television this morning. Someone on the Obamacare team obviously came up with that one over the weekend. :rolleyes:

I also just heard Dem strategist Julian Epstein say that Obamacare should be "something that conservatives should be familiar with -- it's called personal responsiblity so you don't put your costs onto the rest of society...this is a tax cut for most Americans."

I'm not joking.

I don't follow the tax cut statement.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 12:45 PM
Nobody should go broke because they get sick.

If you think they should... well, that's one of many reasons why conservatives lost the election.


Should they go broke if they get into a car accident without insurance? And if that's the reason for health care shouldn't we subsidize car insurance for the poor too?

Just taking Dirk's argument to its logical conclusion...

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 12:47 PM
I don't follow the tax cut statement.

Exactly.

If I was going to guess I'd say his argument was that by covering everyone the prices for all will come down more than that additional cost.

mlyonsd
09-21-2009, 12:49 PM
Exactly.

If I was going to guess I'd say his argument was that by covering everyone the prices for all will come down more than that additional cost.

You must need a special kind of brain to be a liberal.

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 12:51 PM
I was under the impression that you support the health care legislation presently working its way through Congress. Is that incorrect?
jeeezzz man pay attention. I've been against a government run health care plan since 1990 when I was working in the health care field.
now, answer the question. Who pays for the uninsured? The answer is not no one unless you are going to not provide care to them. You ready to leave dying americans in the street because they don't have health insurance?

Donger
09-21-2009, 12:52 PM
jeeezzz man pay attention. I've been against a government run health care plan since 1990 when I was working in the health care field.

Didn't you vote for Obama?

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 12:59 PM
jeeezzz man pay attention. I've been against a government run health care plan since 1990 when I was working in the health care field.
now, answer the question. Who pays for the uninsured? The answer is not no one unless you are going to not provide care to them. You ready to leave dying americans in the street because they don't have health insurance?

Obamacare puts that price tag on a host of people -- certain rich people, certain small business, and a lot of not-so-wealthy young people and middle-class Americans who currently elect not to have health insurance. In that regard it's actually a lot like social security...and will yield the same results as health care succeeds in keeping more older people alive for longer.

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 01:00 PM
Didn't you vote for Obama?Doesn't mean I agree with everything he proposes.

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 01:01 PM
Obamacare puts that price tag on a host of people -- certain rich people, certain small business, and a lot of not-so-wealthy young people and middle-class Americans who currently elect not to have health insurance. In that regard it's actually a lot like social security...and will yield the same results as health care succeeds in keeping more older people alive for longer.
again, who should pay for the uninsured?

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 01:02 PM
No you're not. You believe in egalatarianism. That's different than individual liberty. You believe rich people should be taxed in order to provide "equality" for poor people. That's not believing in individual liberty.

You believe in mandates. That's not believing in individual liberty. That's believing that government knows better than people do about what is good for them.

You are probably right on that TJ to some extent and that is probably what BEP was saying though you said it so I could understand it.

I don't know if I am really though for mandates it depends on the issue I guess.

I think I am pragmatic and maybe this isn't the best example but I believe in the 2nd amendment but I also believe people shouldn't be carrying around Uzi's in schools and airplanes.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 01:02 PM
jeeezzz man pay attention. I've been against a government run health care plan since 1990 when I was working in the health care field.
BRC that's cognitive dissonance. Govt is involved in hc delivery just by mandates alone. And having them supply hc will do so even more because insurance does dictate what will be covered and what won't It's inevitable.

The answer is separation of state and medicine, except for fraud allowing competition between states if you'd like which is more like getting govt out of the way on that. Let the consumer sort it out in the market.

Donger
09-21-2009, 01:03 PM
Doesn't mean I agree with everything he proposes.

You voted for a guy whose central domestic policy was universal health coverage, and you didn't and don't want that?

Good lord, why did you vote for him?

Chief Faithful
09-21-2009, 01:03 PM
Now I understand how he was not going to increase taxes on 95% of Americans.

Donger
09-21-2009, 01:04 PM
jeeezzz man pay attention. I've been against a government run health care plan since 1990 when I was working in the health care field.
now, answer the question. Who pays for the uninsured? The answer is not no one unless you are going to not provide care to them. You ready to leave dying americans in the street because they don't have health insurance?

The taxpayers will, of course.

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 01:06 PM
You voted for a guy whose central domestic policy was universal health coverage, and you didn't and don't want that?

Good lord, why did you vote for him?There is a long thread on here about how i went from undecided to voting for Obama. Use the search dude

wild1
09-21-2009, 01:08 PM
Obamacare puts that price tag on a host of people -- certain rich people, certain small business, and a lot of not-so-wealthy young people and middle-class Americans who currently elect not to have health insurance.

And, if I may interject, a lot of people who have some form of coverage, but not what Obama is going to decide is the minimum acceptable level of coverage.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 01:13 PM
again, who should pay for the uninsured?

I think, if you presume all Americans deserve coverage, we should identify the most cost-effective method of providing such coverage and then pay for that lower cost plan using the "waste" in the system that Obama believes is there. But mandate those savings first. And spell them out clearly in the bill.

Of course there's a reason why none of the bills are going to spell this out because they need political cover. That's why third-parties are tasked with making these decisions. And why a lot of people don't trust what the Dems are trying to do.

RINGLEADER
09-21-2009, 01:14 PM
And, if I may interject, a lot of people who have some form of coverage, but not what Obama is going to decide is the minimum acceptable level of coverage.

Which is why you won't be able to get low-cost catastophic plans.

No matter how much sense they make.

And the liberals say Obama won't change your plan... :rolleyes:

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 01:17 PM
The taxpayers will, of course.and thats wrong. We have to pay for ours, they should not get a free ride.

wild1
09-21-2009, 01:19 PM
Which is why you won't be able to get low-cost catastophic plans.

No matter how much sense they make.

And the liberals say Obama won't change your plan... :rolleyes:

Right, at this point I have a high deductible plan to prevent a catastrophe, but there's no need for the rest as I and mine are in good health and we've worked hard to be financially comfortable. If we have a simple visit to a GP or need a prescription I pay with a debit card. This is the way it should be.

Unfortunately, it sounds like Dear Leader is not going to let me "keep my plan."

Donger
09-21-2009, 01:23 PM
and thats wrong. We have to pay for ours, they should not get a free ride.

Well, unfortunately some people voted this guy into office knowing that this was what he wanted.

wild1
09-21-2009, 01:24 PM
We have to pay for ours, they should not get a free ride.

That's exactly why I am against this.

ROYC75
09-21-2009, 01:40 PM
“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."*


* Adrian Rogers, 1931

thecoffeeguy
09-21-2009, 02:14 PM
lol....i like this guys comment from the youtube comment section from the video.

One
Big
Ass
Mistake
America

Made me chuckle. ROFL

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 02:14 PM
Okay, I look forward to the complex answer.

I gave you fairly complex answers on Iran in another thread, and you responded by saying the protestors in Iran should shut up.

I gave TJ fairly complex answers on my hesitations about unchecked capitalism, and he accused me of saying capitalism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which I didn't.

So pardon me if I think providing a few of you folks complicated answers on anything is a waste of effort, but my time isn't free and you haven't done much in a while to earn that level of commitment.

Donger
09-21-2009, 02:20 PM
I gave you fairly complex answers on Iran in another thread, and you responded by saying the protestors in Iran should shut up.

I gave TJ fairly complex answers on my hesitations about unchecked capitalism, and he accused me of saying capitalism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which I didn't.

So pardon me if I think providing a few of you folks complicated answers on anything is a waste of effort, but my time isn't free and you haven't done much in a while to earn that level of commitment.

That's okay. I can wait.

And, your answer in the Iran thread basically just detailed your usual wishful thinking. I was looking for something meatier, but I understand that isn't possible.

I'm sure the protesters appreciate your green font, though.

Bill Parcells
09-21-2009, 02:23 PM
Did Direckshun study under one of Hamas's classes on radical liberalism?

ROFL

I'm sure he did a thesis on it..lol

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 02:23 PM
That's okay. I can wait.

And, your answer in the Iran thread basically just detailed your usual wishful thinking. I was looking for something meatier, but I understand that isn't possible.

Meatier? What, my relation of facts on the ground wasn't enough for you while you just made shit up on the spot?

Surely I have much to learn about intellectual honesty from Donger. If only I could pay for this sort of tutorial.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 02:24 PM
Nobody should go broke because they get sick.

If you think they should... well, that's one of many reasons why conservatives lost the election.


Uh oh... Looks like you're lacing on the running shoes...

I'll ask again:

Since you're making the laws and conditions for when it's acceptable for people to/not to go broke, perhaps you could enlighten us on when it's acceptable for someone to go broke?

dirk digler
09-21-2009, 02:25 PM
and thats wrong. We have to pay for ours, they should not get a free ride.

It is alot more complicated than that. On my lunch break I was watching an interview with a father who has a son that from birth had some kind of serious defect. He has Medicaid and insurance from his work. He is about to lose his work insurance because it is about to go over the lifetime maximum. The child's cost has exceeded over a million dollars. So what does this family do now because Medicaid isn't going to cover half of this and there is no insurance company going to cover them.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 02:29 PM
I'll ask again:

Since you're making the laws and conditions for when it's acceptable for people to/not to go broke, perhaps you could enlighten us on when it's acceptable for someone to go broke?

You can at least admit that's a complicated issue, and the last time we had a serious discussion on anything you told me to "eat a dick" and ran into other threads blatantly misrepresenting me.

Which I'm okay with if you're not asking me to wax philosophical for paragraphs at a time.

Now, I imagine you'll huff and puff and threaten to blow my house down like you usually do, then light up my rep and follow me from thread to thread for a month taunting me. But until you start being a person about these things you can count me out for the heavy lifting.

Donger
09-21-2009, 02:32 PM
Meatier? What, my relation of facts on the ground wasn't enough for you while you just made shit up on the spot?

Surely I have much to learn about intellectual honesty from Donger. If only I could pay for this sort of tutorial.

If I recall the thread correctly, you basically said that Obama could offer his help but that the Iranians don't want it, even though they have a bunch of signs written in English. So, we are left with people like you making yourselves feel better about their plight by "showing your support" with green font.

BigRedChief
09-21-2009, 02:33 PM
It is alot more complicated than that. On my lunch break I was watching an interview with a father who has a son that from birth had some kind of serious defect. He has Medicaid and insurance from his work. He is about to lose his work insurance because it is about to go over the lifetime maximum. The child's cost has exceeded over a million dollars. So what does this family do now because Medicaid isn't going to cover half of this and there is no insurance company going to cover them.
In this case above its a humanitarian issue. A complicated and moral issue of what's a "right" or "privlidge" we have as Americans to access health care. They played by the rules, worked hard, obeyed the law, were good citizens in the community etc. Thats the dilemma thats not so easily decided.

I was speaking of the % of people who can afford to pay health care premiums for health insurance, but choose not to pay the money and spend it on something else. Thats the ones that should be paying their own frieght when they get sick or in an accident, instead of the taxpayers picking up the tab.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 02:35 PM
If I recall the thread correctly, you basically said that Obama could offer his help but that the Iranians don't want it, even though they have a bunch of signs written in English. So, we are left with people like you making yourselves feel better about their plight by "showing your support" with green font.

And to think I accused you of intellectual dishonesty. Somebody wipe the yolk from my face.

I wouldn't assume too much about what I do and don't do, by the way. This board isn't the only place I exist, and you speculate too much.

Donger
09-21-2009, 02:36 PM
And to think I accused you of intellectual dishonesty. Somebody wipe the yolk from my face.

I wouldn't assume too much about what I do and don't do, by the way. This board isn't the only place I exist, and you speculate too much.

Secret agent man?

Taco John
09-21-2009, 02:43 PM
You can at least admit that's a complicated issue, and the last time we had a serious discussion on anything you told me to "eat a dick" and ran into other threads blatantly misrepresenting me.

Which I'm okay with if you're not asking me to wax philosophical for paragraphs at a time.

Now, I imagine you'll huff and puff and threaten to blow my house down like you usually do, then light up my rep and follow me from thread to thread for a month taunting me. But until you start being a person about these things you can count me out for the heavy lifting.


What's complicated about it? I don't see any complications in the issue. I can admit that it probably makes a liberal have to pull a couple of jenga sticks from the stack in hopes that they don't knock the tower over on themselves.

It must have been a really complicated task to explain what you'd do for earmark reform too, because you still haven't mustered up an answer there. But I'm satisfied because I now know that you can't talk about ear mark reform credibly without having to address the unanswered question from someone on this forum who is sure to bring it up.

I didn't misrepresent you. You said that capitalism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater:


Thus, while capitalism is the superior economic system (or better said: it's the worst except for all the others), unchecked capitalism can be hazardous and that's where we must be mindful to moderate ourselves, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Those are your words. Not mine. I didn't misrepresent you at all. I'm sure that it's "complicated" because you want to qualify "unchecked capitalism" and "checked capitalism" in some complicated way. As though that one of them over the other is somehow "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Capitalism isn't "throwing" anything out. You have not been misrepresnted by anyone but yourself.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 02:45 PM
If I recall the thread correctly, you basically said that Obama could offer his help but that the Iranians don't want it, even though they have a bunch of signs written in English. So, we are left with people like you making yourselves feel better about their plight by "showing your support" with green font.

Ask him what he's doing to help poor people. It's probably the same empty platitudes. Doing something meaningless in show of solidarity, and hoping that enough attention raised to the issue will cause government to wave a magic wand to make everything all better.

Hell, I bet he doesn't even go so far as a meaningless gesture to help poor people. I bet all he does there is argue that rich people should float them and call it good.

Garcia Bronco
09-21-2009, 03:26 PM
That's a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron and cognitive dissonance regarding liberty.


That's a strawman and sweeping generality. I don't think the govt should provide for people, certainly not the Federal govt. And there is no Constitutional authority for it either. Including for Saul's proposal.

That's not the same as " no " laws. I believe in the supreme law which is our Constitution which restricts the Federal govt because it's powers are state to be "specific and enumerated" Following that protects liberty. You don't believe in that law because of what you advocate.

You are expanding the state when we are already under the heavy burden of excessive laws. Govt restricts liberty. Sorry but that's just a fact.

Excellent answer. You folks could stand to learn this to have a proper Government.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 04:30 PM
I didn't misrepresent you. You said that capitalism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater:

Those are your words. Not mine. I didn't misrepresent you at all. I'm sure that it's "complicated" because you want to qualify "unchecked capitalism" and "checked capitalism" in some complicated way. As though that one of them over the other is somehow "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Capitalism isn't "throwing" anything out. You have not been misrepresnted by anyone but yourself.

Well this is the closest you've come to actually understanding my point of view.

Than you conclude your post once again by claiming that I believe that capitalism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. TJ, I don't even know what that means. Get my actual arguments RIGHT, and if you feel the need and have the conveniece to clear your schedule so that you can eat a dick while you do it, well by all means don't let me get in your way.

Get your act together or prepare to be disappointed when I don't want to waste a lot of time on you.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 04:32 PM
Ask him what he's doing to help poor people. It's probably the same empty platitudes. Doing something meaningless in show of solidarity, and hoping that enough attention raised to the issue will cause government to wave a magic wand to make everything all better.

Hell, I bet he doesn't even go so far as a meaningless gesture to help poor people. I bet all he does there is argue that rich people should float them and call it good.

Actually I don't comment on my personal life here, so you're not going to get anything out of me on that at all.

If you want, I can adopt Donger's tactics and just make shit up. Let me know.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 04:47 PM
Well this is the closest you've come to actually understanding my point of view.

Than you conclude your post once again by claiming that I believe that capitalism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. TJ, I don't even know what that means. Get my actual arguments RIGHT, and if you feel the need and have the conveniece to clear your schedule so that you can eat a dick while you do it, well by all means don't let me get in your way.

Get your act together or prepare to be disappointed when I don't want to waste a lot of time on you.


I gave you your own words on it. I don't know what more you want.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 04:49 PM
I gave you your own words on it.

A lot of good that does me when you can't accurately reflect what those words mean.

I mean if that's what passes for understanding a contrary point of view, I could just spend my time chatting with parrots.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 05:02 PM
A lot of good that does me when you can't accurately reflect what those words mean.

I mean if that's what passes for understanding a contrary point of view, I could just spend my time chatting with parrots.


You might learn how naive your arguments sound if you went about it that way.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 05:06 PM
For that matter, nothing you said about throwing the baby out with the bathwater made any sense. I'm not sure what you think there is to understand there. It really was a terrible metaphor on your part.

wild1
09-21-2009, 05:58 PM
I'm amused that this is still going.

When you get down to parsing words that everyone on earth understands like "tax", you know that there is not a lot of merit to that side of the argument.

Obama was blindsided because this is what tends to happen to him when he isn't in front of a prompter or gets a question he isn't prepared in advance for. He stutters and stammers and is useless.

KC Dan
09-21-2009, 06:08 PM
So, if one is "poor" and can't afford health insurance (even the bare minimum - whatever the hell that is) and the US is going to provide you with a subsidy (probably not 100% cash upfront), how the hell does one "poor" family afford to buy the bare minimum insurance. And, if they don't buy it because they can't - how the hell do they pay the fee - penalty - tax (whatever you want to call it)?

THEY'RE POOR REMEMBER!

The only way it works for them is to give it to them free of charge with no $$$ ever coming out of their pockets. EVER. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, my grandma used to say.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 06:59 PM
You might learn how naive your arguments sound if you went about it that way.

For that matter, nothing you said about throwing the baby out with the bathwater made any sense. I'm not sure what you think there is to understand there. It really was a terrible metaphor on your part.

For what it's worth, I have absolutely no problem with my reputation as an idealist that's starting to form around here. Naivete and idealism, however, do not always go hand in hand.

You don't want to embrace the metaphor, fine. You ask to clarify then, instead of simply installing a ridiculous strawman argument in my place. Only in TJ's world can a post that starts "capitalism is the engine of a progressive society" can one still be considered a socialist.

Whatev. It's your perogative.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 07:07 PM
For what it's worth, I have absolutely no problem with my reputation as an idealist that's starting to form around here. Naivete and idealism, however, do not always go hand in hand.

You don't want to embrace the metaphor, fine. You ask to clarify then, instead of simply installing a ridiculous strawman argument in my place. Only in TJ's world can a post that starts "capitalism is the engine of a progressive society" can one still be considered a socialist.

Whatev. It's your perogative.


I refuse to take responsibility for your twisted use of the metaphor. And just because you couched it with adequate double speak doesn't make the metaphor any more legit.

How is "capitalism is the engine of a progressive society but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater" any more legit? Let's not throw any amount of capitalism out, and restrict it only to the degree that it infringes on the constitutional liberties of others.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 07:12 PM
I refuse to take responsibility for your twisted use of the metaphor. And just because you couched it with adequate double speak doesn't make the metaphor any more legit.

How id "capitalism is the engine of a progressive society but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater" any more legit? Let's not throw any amount of capitalism out, and restrict it only to the degree that it infringes on the constitutional liberties of others.

How brave of you to take a stand on Direckshun's Bad Metaphor. I'm amazed you haven't run for office with that sort of candor.

The metaphor described the general argument that I made anyway which you seem to understand enough to FINALLY start responding to it. This is the very first post where you seem to have realized the point I was making, though you obviously disagree with it. If you had come around sooner, we could have actually had that discussion in a relevent thread. And I'd be more willing to dance with you in threads like these.

Donger
09-21-2009, 07:22 PM
Heh.



WASHINGTON – Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance — and fining them if they don't — isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.

"If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that's a tax," said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. "If you don't pay, the person who's going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS."

Democrats aren't the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the 1990s' health care debate, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax credits to encourage people to buy coverage — carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it's becoming clear such a requirement will be part of any legislation that Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn't raise taxes, and it cost him the next election," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Obama is doing the same thing, but he's insulting people by telling them that if you don't call it a big purple banana, somehow it wouldn't be a tax."

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

"I think it's a metaphysical question as to whether it's a tax or not," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "The real question that will determine whether people are upset is whether the insurance is affordable."

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week," Obama insisted that the insurance requirement is not a tax.

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said. "What it's saying is...that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

"Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance," Obama added. "Nobody considers that a tax increase.

"You just can't make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," he added.

But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus' bill calls the proposed fines an "excise tax." Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don't get coverage.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a "tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage."

The coverage mandate is part of a political bargain under which the insurance industry would agree to take all applicants, regardless of prior medical history.

"If we're going to have coverage without regard to pre-existing conditions, it makes sense," said economist Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. "Otherwise people will come in the door the day they get sick." He sees no distinction between the requirement to get coverage and the fines themselves.

"The fact that it is imposed on people and they have no choice in paying it, and the fact that it's administered through the tax system all make it look like a tax," Williams said. The center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

It wouldn't be the first asterisk added to Obama's campaign pledge on taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for children's health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of his expansive campaign promise.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Taco John
09-21-2009, 07:23 PM
If that's the case, I wasn't wrong at all in my original reaction. You were being purposefully deceptive in your use of the metaphor. Like Obama is being purposefully deceptive when he argues that the dictionary definition isn't an acceptable way to look at the issue - that his prism is a superior way. Doing that, you can't expect a rational discussion. You can only expect anger at the insolence of it.

But we digress (by design, I'm sure). You still haven't managed to answer the question:

Since you're making the laws and conditions for when it's acceptable for people to/not to go broke, perhaps you could enlighten us on when it's acceptable for someone *to* go broke?

Take your time. I'm sure that this is complicated.

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 07:29 PM
If that's the case, I wasn't wrong at all in my original reaction. You were being purposefully deceptive in your use of the metaphor. Like Obama is being purposefully deceptive when he argues that the dictionary definition isn't an acceptable way to look at the issue - that his prism is a superior way. Doing that, you can't expect a rational discussion. You can only expect anger at the insolence of it.

But we digress (by design, I'm sure). You still haven't managed to answer the question:

Since you're making the laws and conditions for when it's acceptable for people to/not to go broke, perhaps you could enlighten us on when it's acceptable for someone *to* go broke?

Take your time. I'm sure that this is complicated.

Capitalism != unchecked capitalism.

Figure out which one I'm talking about, calm the fuck down, and have a great evening.

ROYC75
09-21-2009, 07:31 PM
Fact is Obama has lied about his no tax increase and now he wants to add to it, but yet call it something other than a tax.

Lie and deflect anyone ?

wild1
09-21-2009, 07:43 PM
Just because uhhh - it's in the Internal Revenue Code, uhhh and the IRS collects the money, uhh. Listen. That's not a tax increase. You're stretching.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 07:51 PM
Fact is Obama has lied about his no tax increase and now he wants to add to it, but yet call it something other than a tax.

Lie and deflect anyone ?

That's what Mitt Romney did in Mass. He just added services fees....which took place of taxes.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 07:51 PM
Capitalism != unchecked capitalism.

Figure out which one I'm talking about, calm the **** down, and have a great evening.

Which kind of capitalism are your discussing?

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 08:19 PM
Which kind of capitalism are your discussing?

We were discussing unchecked capitalism, with nonexistant government regulation.

To hear TJ tell it, though, I was condemning the entire existence of the free market.

BucEyedPea
09-21-2009, 08:37 PM
[COLOR="Green"]We were discussing unchecked capitalism, with nonexistant government regulation.
That's not what I meant. I meant are you looking at mercantilism/crony capitalism/corporatism which is what most think of as unchecked capitalism or true free-market which is democratic? it depends on what you mean by regulation too. Like it being minimal to modest to protect against fraud,which does not make a market unfree. Or are you regulating for egalitarianism? Outside of those things a free-market does have mechanisms that regulate much of it on it's own.

Chocolate Hog
09-21-2009, 08:51 PM
Obama will deny all the inflation from his government programs is a tax on the middle class too

Taco John
09-21-2009, 08:59 PM
Capitalism != unchecked capitalism.



Capitalism is checked by contracts. I'm not certain what you mean by "unchecked" capitalism. As far as I know, there's no such thing as "unchecked capitalism" except where exchanges are forced and unvoluntary (ie. mandated). And that isn't really capitalism.

So what are you talking about?

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 09:10 PM
Capitalism is checked by contracts. I'm not certain what you mean by "unchecked" capitalism. As far as I know, there's no such thing as "unchecked capitalism" except where exchanges are forced and unvoluntary (ie. mandated). And that isn't really capitalism.

So what are you talking about?

Why are you just asking this now?

I mean in the thread where we were actually discussing this, you just started hysterics over my alleged hatred of capitalism. Honestly, guy.

I'm open to having these conversations, I have them regularly throughout this forum -- but if you're wondering why very few of them have been with you, well...

Direckshun
09-21-2009, 09:12 PM
That's not what I meant. I meant are you looking at mercantilism/crony capitalism/corporatism which is what most think of as unchecked capitalism or true free-market which is democratic?

We've had this conversation. I don't believe you can have the latter without the former constantly threatening to make itself present.

Taco John
09-21-2009, 11:47 PM
Why are you just asking this now?

I mean in the thread where we were actually discussing this, you just started hysterics over my alleged hatred of capitalism. Honestly, guy.

I'm open to having these conversations, I have them regularly throughout this forum -- but if you're wondering why very few of them have been with you, well...


You flatter yourself. I haven't wondered. I've pretty well avoided even trying to engage you since your pathetic display WRT ear marks. But occassionally, your propaganda brings me out.

If you've ever wondered why I don't bother to engage you in serious discussion, it's because you run away from questions and then act like you're being so reasonable in doing so. I asked you a question about earmarks. You ran from it. I asked you a question in this thread about your position on when it's ok for someone to go broke. You said it was complicated, and dodged it as well... Even in this last response, you haven't really said anything.

So...

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 12:29 AM
You flatter yourself. I haven't wondered. I've pretty well avoided even trying to engage you since your pathetic display WRT ear marks. But occassionally, your propaganda brings me out.

If you've ever wondered why I don't bother to engage you in serious discussion, it's because you run away from questions and then act like you're being so reasonable in doing so. I asked you a question about earmarks. You ran from it. I asked you a question in this thread about your position on when it's ok for someone to go broke. You said it was complicated, and dodged it as well... Even in this last response, you haven't really said anything.

So...

I just know your game. It's huff and puff, blow your house down, talk to me or I'll berate you. I'm not going to play into the hands of that, but when I start getting serious conversation, I'll engage. It really is that simple.

Taco John
09-22-2009, 12:33 AM
When you can answer softball questions you engage. When you have to answer real questions, you get squirrelly and talk a lot without saying anything. Just look at how many pages you've stretched this thread into avoiding the question about when it's ok for someone to go broke.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 12:49 AM
When you can answer softball questions you engage. When you have to answer real questions, you get squirrelly and talk a lot without saying anything. Just look at how many pages you've stretched this thread into avoiding the question about when it's ok for someone to go broke.

Well I'll admit at this point it's all about ****ing with you.

Taco John
09-22-2009, 12:50 AM
Your reputation for running when confronted with tough questions is well earned.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 12:52 AM
Your reputation for running when confronted with tough questions is well earned.

The earth continues to spin rapidly on its axis.

Taco John
09-22-2009, 12:54 AM
Let me show you something...

Here is how it looks when someone asks you a tough question, but you are so grounded in what you believe that you're able to answer it without playing a bunch of games (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5568685#post5568685).

You could learn a lot from me, kid.

Taco John
09-22-2009, 12:55 AM
Yeah. You're fucking with me...

Ha!

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 12:56 AM
Let me show you something...

Here is how it looks when someone asks you a tough question, and you are so grounded in what you believe that you're able to answer it without playing a bunch of games (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5568685#post5568685).

You could learn a lot from me, kid.

Fielding questions from Amnorix vs. fielding questions from TJ...

Taco John
09-22-2009, 12:59 AM
Fielding questions from Amnorix vs. fielding questions from TJ...

I absolutely love how you blame your inability to answer questions on me. Being a liberal is perfect for you. You wear it like it fits.

Direckshun
09-22-2009, 01:13 AM
I absolutely love how you blame your inability to answer questions on me. Being a liberal is perfect for you. You wear it like it fits.

And to think I called you a drama queen.

***SPRAYER
09-22-2009, 09:09 AM
Your reputation for running when confronted with tough questions is well earned.

As an impartial observer---

You got your head handed to you (as usual) in this thread. Meanwhile your hero continues to get his handed to him as well...

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8

Amnorix
09-22-2009, 09:32 AM
mmmm....I wouldn't call it a tax either, though it's certainly a government-imposed cost, so in the loosest sense it would be.

Businesses, especially, have tons of costs that are government imposed in one way or another. But you wouldn't call having to upgrade equipment to meet OSHA requirements a "tax".

And certainly accountants wouldn't call it a tax. It's not going to be plugged into an EBITDA calculation.

But is it a cost? Sure.

Brock
09-22-2009, 09:35 AM
The government is also famous for what they call "fees", and rarely miss an opportunity to levy them.

wild1
09-22-2009, 09:38 AM
Businesses, especially, have tons of costs that are government imposed in one way or another. But you wouldn't call having to upgrade equipment to meet OSHA requirements a "tax".

You are subject to those regulations because you are operating a business in that industry. There's no way to escape this tax other than by dying.

Taco John
09-22-2009, 09:40 AM
mmmm....I wouldn't call it a tax either, though it's certainly a government-imposed cost, so in the loosest sense it would be.

Businesses, especially, have tons of costs that are government imposed in one way or another. But you wouldn't call having to upgrade equipment to meet OSHA requirements a "tax".

And certainly accountants wouldn't call it a tax. It's not going to be plugged into an EBITDA calculation.

But is it a cost? Sure.



The bill language in both the house and senate call it specifically a tax.