Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

  • (14 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Last »

205 Replies - 6634 Views - Last Post: 09 November 2013 - 09:04 AM

#106 macosxnerd101  Icon User is online

  • Self-Trained Economist
  • member icon




Reputation: 10563
  • View blog
  • Posts: 39,087
  • Joined: 27-December 08

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:00 PM

Bort brought up indefinite unemployment here. I disagreed with him. farrell2k responded my post (first post on page 5) disagreeing with the idea of indefinite unemployment.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#107 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1926
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,471
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:01 PM

View PostSergio Tapia, on 30 September 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

People who are against this have never felt the sting of not having enough money to get checked at the hospital. "No meat this week because we had to buy flu medicine for our child." Real, hardcore shit like that.

Sure you are against it because right now your situation is good, but nothing lasts. When shit hits the fan, and it does for every family at least once, you'll change your tune quickly.


I've been that person with the shit hitting the fan. I'm not against this plan because my situation is good now. I'm against it because this "plan" is a half baked turd masquerading as a solution. If the issue is "healthcare is too expensive and not everybody can afford it" the way to solve isn't to force everyone to pay even more for the already expensive product and then take that overage and redistribute it to folks who couldn't afford it before. The solution is to address the cost drivers...which this does precious little of. SOMEBODY is making stupid bank on healthcare...but gee, we (our politicians that is) just can't figure out who, right?

If we're not willing to honestly address the cost drivers then, believe it or not, I think the best solution IS a single payer system wherein a minimum of healthcare is guaranteed where people can purchase additional coverage to cover things that may be pertinent to their situation. Kind of like the concept of major medical and such. But we didn't get that either. The premiums for this "plan" SHOULD be in the form of taxes (and not this ridiculous and clearly unconstitutional "individual mandate" bullshit). The reason it wasn't put forward as a tax is purely political: Democrats didn't want it to be enabled as a tax because it WOULD have been the largest tax increase in history and they would have lost the next election. In other words, they could have done something in the best interests of the country but they valued their political careers even more...so we got this cobbled together, steaming pile of shit of a law that almost certainly will be a drag on our economy. Already, quite a few companies are converting F/T work to P/T so the employer doesn't have to provide for the coverage (great by catch, BTW: reduce the employee's hours and pay and then the employee gets to deal with the individual mandate) and this was something that was readily envisioned before this thing was even finished being negotiated.

It's not like the United States hasn't been busy committing economic suicide since we started NAFTA anyway...but this is actually much worse. Understand, when it becomes clear to even the most deluded fools that no employer is going to foot the bill for this crap when all they need to do is make everyone a P/T employee...what then? Since the folks who think this is a good idea already typically have a shit attitude when it comes to employers and business in general, surely even they can discern that eventuality. If so, what then? You have to turn to the individual mandate again...and, because jack shit will be done about actually containing costs, premiums will have to rise and the employers won't be there to magically (because they have endless mounds of money just sitting around) cover those costs...so it'll be huge premium hikes that won't be offset near as much by soaking the employers which means the individual gets stuck with the bill.

This is a political clusterfuck of the worst order because the place to address the issues is also the same place, coincidentally enough, that has loads and loads of dollars to contribute to re-election campaigns.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#108 farrell2k  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 840
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,576
  • Joined: 29-July 11

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:02 PM

View Postmacosxnerd101, on 30 September 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

I was talking about unemployment specifically. I was against indefinite unemployment, and you replied saying that indefinite unemployment benefits were great.


Maybe you confused me with someone else, or misunderstood my point about zero unemployment and skill set. I was just pointing out that sometimes no matter how good your skills are, you're not always going to have a job, unless unemployment was at 0%, then of course you would always have one...

Quote

My point is that the employer has to make money in order to stay in business and pay the employees. You seem to be implying that taxes on the employer really aren't taxes, as they're passed onto the customers. Taxes hurt employers. Both my parents are small business owners. Tax increases affect them in a very real way. I'm happy to whip out Pareto diagrams if you want me to get into the economics of this.


No need. I make my living from real estate investments, so I am hammered with taxes on the state, federal, and most especially on the local level with school taxes. Taxes on me are definitely taxes, but they're only really paid by me when my rentals are empty; otherwise, they're all paid by the renter. The same goes for any business, really.

This is too off topic.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#109 macosxnerd101  Icon User is online

  • Self-Trained Economist
  • member icon




Reputation: 10563
  • View blog
  • Posts: 39,087
  • Joined: 27-December 08

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:07 PM

farrell2k- This was your post. You can follow the link back from mine to see I was talking about unemployment.

Quote

misunderstood my point about zero unemployment and skill set. I was just pointing out that sometimes no matter how good your skills are, you're not always going to have a job, unless unemployment was at 0%, then of course you would always have one...

I understood that point, but I don't think it justifies indefinite unemployment benefits.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#110 farrell2k  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 840
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,576
  • Joined: 29-July 11

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:11 PM

View PostCraig328, on 30 September 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

View PostSergio Tapia, on 30 September 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

People who are against this have never felt the sting of not having enough money to get checked at the hospital. "No meat this week because we had to buy flu medicine for our child." Real, hardcore shit like that.

Sure you are against it because right now your situation is good, but nothing lasts. When shit hits the fan, and it does for every family at least once, you'll change your tune quickly.


I've been that person with the shit hitting the fan. I'm not against this plan because my situation is good now. I'm against it because this "plan" is a half baked turd masquerading as a solution. If the issue is "healthcare is too expensive and not everybody can afford it" the way to solve isn't to force everyone to pay even more for the already expensive product and then take that overage and redistribute it to folks who couldn't afford it before. The solution is to address the cost drivers...which this does precious little of. SOMEBODY is making stupid bank on healthcare...but gee, we (our politicians that is) just can't figure out who, right?


The absolute hilarious part about all of this was that what was originally proposed was the public option, which was just that, an option. There was no mandate. The public option was to survive off of its own premiums, just like a private insurer does, and would receive no tax money for operation. But, no, Republicans, spearheaded by Chuck Grassley insisted that private insurers would never be able to compete with the public option, which should tell any level-headed individual how good of an idea it was, so instead we got Romneycare nationwide with the individual mandate.

Republican bitching and moaning took something that was completely optional and turned it into a mandate. Grassley even wrote part of the bill, including his Grassley Amendment which required congress to get its health care from the exchanges come Jan 1st, 2014.

The way I look at it, Republicans not only screwed themselves, but everyone else, again...

View Postmacosxnerd101, on 30 September 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

I understood that point, but I don't think it justifies indefinite unemployment benefits.


If by indefinite benefits you mean quite literally benefits indefinitely for a person or a group, then I don't like that either. I am confused by all of this now, so I am going to do what I do best when I encounter something that confuses me.....ignore it. :lol:/>

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 30 September 2013 - 01:13 PM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#111 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1926
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,471
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:13 PM

View Postfarrell2k, on 30 September 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

View PostCraig328, on 30 September 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

View PostSergio Tapia, on 30 September 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

People who are against this have never felt the sting of not having enough money to get checked at the hospital. "No meat this week because we had to buy flu medicine for our child." Real, hardcore shit like that.

Sure you are against it because right now your situation is good, but nothing lasts. When shit hits the fan, and it does for every family at least once, you'll change your tune quickly.


I've been that person with the shit hitting the fan. I'm not against this plan because my situation is good now. I'm against it because this "plan" is a half baked turd masquerading as a solution. If the issue is "healthcare is too expensive and not everybody can afford it" the way to solve isn't to force everyone to pay even more for the already expensive product and then take that overage and redistribute it to folks who couldn't afford it before. The solution is to address the cost drivers...which this does precious little of. SOMEBODY is making stupid bank on healthcare...but gee, we (our politicians that is) just can't figure out who, right?


Th absolute hilarious part about all of this was that what was originally proposed was the public option, which was just that, an option. There was no mandate. The public option was to survive off of its own premiums, just like a private insurer does, and would receive no tax money for operation. But, no, Republicans, spearheaded by Chuck Grassley insisted that private insurers would never be able to compete with the public option, which should tell any level-headed individual how good of an idea it was, so instead we got Romneycare nationwide with the individual mandate.

Republican bitching and moaning took something that was completely optional and turned it into a mandate. Grassley even wrote part of the bill, including his Grassley Amendment which required congress to get its health care from the exchanges come Jan 1st, 2014.

The way I look at it, Republicans not only screwed themselves, but everyone else, again...


Wow. You blame this on the party that didn't propose it, didn't control the House, didn't control the Senate, didn't control the White House when it passed and who lost the only meaningful legal challenge to it at the Supreme Court?

That's...some impressive logic contortions there.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#112 farrell2k  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 840
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,576
  • Joined: 29-July 11

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:21 PM

View PostCraig328, on 30 September 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

View Postfarrell2k, on 30 September 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

View PostCraig328, on 30 September 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

View PostSergio Tapia, on 30 September 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

People who are against this have never felt the sting of not having enough money to get checked at the hospital. "No meat this week because we had to buy flu medicine for our child." Real, hardcore shit like that.

Sure you are against it because right now your situation is good, but nothing lasts. When shit hits the fan, and it does for every family at least once, you'll change your tune quickly.


I've been that person with the shit hitting the fan. I'm not against this plan because my situation is good now. I'm against it because this "plan" is a half baked turd masquerading as a solution. If the issue is "healthcare is too expensive and not everybody can afford it" the way to solve isn't to force everyone to pay even more for the already expensive product and then take that overage and redistribute it to folks who couldn't afford it before. The solution is to address the cost drivers...which this does precious little of. SOMEBODY is making stupid bank on healthcare...but gee, we (our politicians that is) just can't figure out who, right?


Th absolute hilarious part about all of this was that what was originally proposed was the public option, which was just that, an option. There was no mandate. The public option was to survive off of its own premiums, just like a private insurer does, and would receive no tax money for operation. But, no, Republicans, spearheaded by Chuck Grassley insisted that private insurers would never be able to compete with the public option, which should tell any level-headed individual how good of an idea it was, so instead we got Romneycare nationwide with the individual mandate.

Republican bitching and moaning took something that was completely optional and turned it into a mandate. Grassley even wrote part of the bill, including his Grassley Amendment which required congress to get its health care from the exchanges come Jan 1st, 2014.

The way I look at it, Republicans not only screwed themselves, but everyone else, again...


Wow. You blame this on the party that didn't propose it, didn't control the House, didn't control the Senate, didn't control the White House when it passed and who lost the only meaningful legal challenge to it at the Supreme Court?

That's...some impressive logic contortions there.



No. no. no. You simplify it too much. Democrats had to use the "Nuclear option" because they didn't have big enough majorities in the house to pass the bill.

In short, yes, Republicans whined about the public option, then signed on to the individual mandate and agreed to it. It was only when enforcement of the individual mandate's "tax" was stripped toothless by decreasing penalties for not paying the "obamacare fine" that they decided to not vote for the bill at all.

You clearly don't know much about the law or its history. You should read up on it first.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#113 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4503
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,410
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:27 PM

View Postmacosxnerd101, on 30 September 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Please present me with an argument about how indefinite unemployment benefits are a good thing, and I will reconsider my stance. Did you read my post where I argued against it?

you added the indefinite qualifier though. indefinite qualifiers are a small portion of UI. an extremely shitty portion that they do A LOT to hurt at the expense of others who actually need the temporary safety net.

farrell's point was about unemployment as a societal safety net, your point is about indefinite unemployment as a benefit to no one. you are both correct, and that's possible because you guys aren't discussing the same thing.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#114 macosxnerd101  Icon User is online

  • Self-Trained Economist
  • member icon




Reputation: 10563
  • View blog
  • Posts: 39,087
  • Joined: 27-December 08

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:31 PM

Quote

you added the indefinite qualifier though. indefinite qualifiers are a small portion of UI. an extremely shitty portion that they do A LOT to hurt at the expense of others who actually need the temporary safety net.

Bort added the indefinite qualifier. I think farrell2k and I are on the same page about regular ol' unemployment.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#115 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4503
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,410
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:36 PM

so then you guys just disagree on the throwing the baby out with the bathwater part. got it.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#116 NecroWinter  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular

Reputation: 36
  • View blog
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 21-October 11

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 01 October 2013 - 02:56 PM

https://www.youtube....h?v=sx2scvIFGjE

This is hilarious. People explaining why they don't like Obamacare but like the ACA...
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#117 KYA  Icon User is offline

  • g++ jameson.cpp -o beverage
  • member icon

Reputation: 3101
  • View blog
  • Posts: 19,141
  • Joined: 14-September 07

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:36 AM

I was curious to see what sweet deals Maryland had put together, but alas the site was down.

Why in the hell do I need to create an account to see rates? Insurers don't do that shit now on their personal sites...
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#118 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4503
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,410
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:04 PM

i finally got the letter from Presbyterian telling me what my insurance is going to be come jan 1. i'm getting a $60 a month price increase (expected) from $135 to $195. sucks, but i'm still paying less than the $450 i was paying with my employer coverage up thru june. that does include some extra coverage i was not currently receiving. (meh) and things like pregnancy care in case i unfortunately get my girlfriend pregnant. which i suppose, would be nice to have in that situation. still haven't been able to check out the exchanges (i don't even know if i qualify anyway yet) due to website problems.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#119 KYA  Icon User is offline

  • g++ jameson.cpp -o beverage
  • member icon

Reputation: 3101
  • View blog
  • Posts: 19,141
  • Joined: 14-September 07

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 09 October 2013 - 05:31 AM

edit : herp derp I had already complained about this

Maryland's site is still slow as crap.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#120 aidenkael  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Head

Reputation: 6
  • View blog
  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 22-October 13

Re: Teh "Socialism" is upon us...

Posted 30 October 2013 - 07:25 AM

First off, here are my stats:

21 years old, I have Marfans Syndrome (bone disorder), my yearly income is $55k, and I am self employed.

Now before October 1st, I had a plan through BCBS of Michigan that I loved which was about $226 a month. It covered everything I needed (Marfans care, hospital stays for tests, etc.) with a reasonable out of pocket and ceiling.

I logged onto healthcare.gov because I received a letter saying that my plan was no longer offered because of the new rules from ACA. So, I didn't worry about it to much, I just jumped onto healthcare.gov and browsed around! Here is what killed. The cheapest plan I could find was Medicare, and because I have a bone disorder, it would cost me $710 a month. Thats 3.5x what my private insurance was. In addition, it covered none of my marfans treatment, none of my testing, and the out of pocket will kill me within 6 months. Hesitantly I found a plan similar to my old plan, but for almost $1600 a month. I am now considered paying the penalty, because it is cheaper then Medicare and its about the same coverage.

In addition, my fiancee and I have delayed our wedding with no real hope to be married in the next few years because her healthcare costs would skyrocket if she had to add my $55k to her earnings.

Well, that is my experience, and I hope some (most) of you had better experiences then I did. I feel cheated, and I'm conservative, so I kind of new this would probably happen anyway

Anyone else had theirs lower? Raise? I want to hear from the people!
Was This Post Helpful? -1
  • +
  • -

  • (14 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Last »