RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation

RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/29/2012 10:46:28 AM)
The inversion results in a denial. Our existence is denied.

Louve00 -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/29/2012 1:35:23 PM)
Instead of panicking and presuming things you really don't know check out this site and click around. Explore it for the answers you're looking for. The facts of the ACA are all there, if you explore the site and click around. I even found where it will tell you, according to your state and family situation, where you stand and how you can get coverage and how much it costs. I'm not saying its going to make everyone happy. Nothing seems to do that. But it will explain this law to those with questions. Including a timeline (in the yellow tab) that even starts to pay physicians more money in the year 2013 and by the beginning of 2015, will be paying Drs. for value of treatment, not volume. Medicare worked, as much as people didn't want to see it implemented. We will have to see if this will, I guess :)

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/29/2012 5:16:05 PM)
I went to the web site. Let's see. I'm not a drug addict. I do not belong to a minority group. It is the same ole, same ole. You have to qualify. To qualify you must be a drug addict, etc. I wouldn't be surprised that illegal aliens will find it easier to find medical insurance.

kalikshama -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/29/2012 5:53:02 PM)
I don't get those options, but then I don't share your state or state of mind.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/29/2012 7:08:20 PM)
Why could they not have gotten it right? They could in theory have kept it simple and actually made it a tax where a portion of your income tax went to an insurance company of your chosing. It is like the line in the movie "A Few Good Men" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY "You Can't Handle the Truth", but the problem with the supreme court is it didn't have the balls. It instead chose cowardice. They should have struck down the law. They should have said the problem with the law was that it was a tax that had not gone through the proper channels. They instead decided to make law to correct the error instead of insisting that Congress do it. It would have been the conservative thing to do. They instead chose to get funky.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 4:29:18 AM)
Was it the merits? No. The idea of affordable health care was good. What was the objection, then? End justifies the means. It was all too politically expedient. Perhaps in frustration, its advocates chose the path of dishonor.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 4:57:05 AM)
It is not about whether your adversary has chosen the path of dishonor. It is about whether or not you have chosen the path of dishonor.

joether -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 5:25:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I went to the web site. Let's see. I'm not a drug addict. I do not belong to a minority group. It is the same ole, same ole. You have to qualify. To qualify you must be a drug addict, etc. I wouldn't be surprised that illegal aliens will find it easier to find medical insurance. What was the first two words on the OP (that you wrote I might add)? "Ideology aside." That implies that those that respond to your post, do NOT push their personal political agenda into the discussion. And then you asked for information on a concept. Which other people (including myself) tried to provide for you. But than you come back with examples (like the above quote) to show that your not following your own rules! If your going to bitch on how the ACA works (or doesnt work), than your in full and total violation of your own F-ing rules of the thread! If your going to pour in ideological B.S. when you originally asked others not to, that's like say "Do as I say, but dont dont as I do". Sorry, doesnt work that way. People responded to your questions and rules in good faith, and how did you respond back? Nothing short of a backstab! Its the 'golden rule' in action, BM.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 8:38:34 PM)
In post 19 I wrote quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Do you realize that this sort of thinking was fingered as a cause for the recent global financial crisis? It was shown that this sort of thinking results in a moral decline that is difficult to recover from. I concede that what I wrote may not be entirely cogent for the following reason. Though there is evidence that as a rule a policy such as this will or often results in moral decline, it may not necessarily result in moral decline if the motivation is one of necessity as opposed to financial advantage or convenience.(1) (1) What about failure to comply due to an ideological objection?

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 8:49:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Was it the merits? No. The idea of affordable health care was good. What was the objection, then? End justifies the means. It was all too politically expedient. Perhaps in frustration, its advocates chose the path of dishonor. The problem with the point I am raising here is that in politics the politically expedient maybe all you got. It is often the case that one must chose not between the right and wrong choice, but between an evil and a lesser evil. Unfortunately, many of the proponents are clearly people who are in need of someone to show them the difference between right and wrong because they are convinced that the ends justifies the means. It makes their argument weak.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 8:52:54 PM)
I noticed some implementatioin details were expressed in the thread http://www.collarchat.com/m_4154545/tm.htm I also made the following three posts to that thread in where I discussed what I feel pertain to implementation. Post I If you are so worried about people who go to the ER without insurance, I have a suggestion for you. I suggest you write your congressman to petition the government for opium dens where instead of providing medical care, everyone without medical insurance are sent to the opium den. That would sure save the taxpayers a lot of money. I am assuming all your hard earned money wasn't lost when the economy had a melt down. I have news for you, you didn't earn the sun, the moon, the stars or any of the clothes on your back. You did not earn the oil in the ground. You did not earn the food that you eat. Be grateful that you have anything. A comet could fall from the sky tomorrow. What's to stop it? Post II Is the fine accumulative and are you subject to a fine even if you only earned a dollar? I head that the fine will go to 2.5% of your income. That is not a minor fine. Do you have to pay interest and additional fines "hidden charges" collection fees and such on that debit? It is nice to you know that your assets are liquid and flow like the Nile river. You are also not considering the legal precedent this sets. Though government fucks with the people on a daily basis, it is an expansion of the means to do further harm. Post III I'm talking money, dollars and cents; not legal, moral, or theory of government: When you have the money, these things aren't a problem. Most people have money even many of the poor. Many cry poor when their poverty mostly has to do with priorities. Someone with very little can be more generous than a wealthy neighbor. Did the world end when gasoline became more expensive? It didn't. This is not to say that it is comfortable. Most people already have medical insurance as it is. You would be picking up the tab for only a small percentage of the population. One danger is making the insurance companies a monopoly. Another is investing in a wrong paradigm. IF those can be managed, there won't be a problem and all of this is cry baby stuff.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 9:18:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I went to the web site. Let's see. I'm not a drug addict. I do not belong to a minority group. It is the same ole, same ole. You have to qualify. To qualify you must be a drug addict, etc. I wouldn't be surprised that illegal aliens will find it easier to find medical insurance. What was the first two words on the OP (that you wrote I might add)? "Ideology aside." That implies that those that respond to your post, do NOT push their personal political agenda into the discussion. And then you asked for information on a concept. Which other people (including myself) tried to provide for you. But than you come back with examples (like the above quote) to show that your not following your own rules! If your going to bitch on how the ACA works (or doesnt work), than your in full and total violation of your own F-ing rules of the thread! If your going to pour in ideological B.S. when you originally asked others not to, that's like say "Do as I say, but dont dont as I do". Sorry, doesnt work that way. People responded to your questions and rules in good faith, and how did you respond back? Nothing short of a backstab! Its the 'golden rule' in action, BM. I see no contradiction. As it stands it is the same ole, same ole. "You have to qualify." Another qualifying factor is HIV. Another qualifying factor is age; if you are a minor or retirement age. The only qualifying factor that makes sense to me is whether or not you have served in the armed services. Why? Because it is an honor to serve your country. Is it honorable for example to be a drug addict? When medical insurance was optional, not mandated, all of that made sense from a legal point of view since it fell under the category of charity or a contract negotiation. If they want information such as your bank account number, any such request would move it out of the category of charity to that of a contract negotiation. If you want the consideration, you must do so and so in exchange. It is still presumably early in the game. It looks like they simply did a cut and paste concerning existing policy which is based on old thinking. The problem is the people likely in charge of how things are going to be implemented are old school.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 10:57:32 PM)
One of the posts from the http://www.collarchat.com/m_4154545/tm.htm thread that supplies pertinent information concerning implementation is this one post 182. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Actually, and this is the one major thing most people do not get, unless things have changed since I last read the bill, like with the SCOTUS ruling, there is no legal way for collecting the penalty (or tax). In fact, the bill explicitly states that while a penalty will be charged to anybody who doesn't purchase health insurance, it also explicitly forbids the IRS or any other governmental agency from forcing you to pay it. The stories of pay the fine or go to jail just are not true. The IRS can withhold the fine from a tax return but otherwise they cannot force anyone to pay it. What I am unclear about is whether or not the government could employ a collection agency since a collection agency is neither the IRS nor a law enforcement agency per se. Can they ruin your credit? Will they take it out of your social security benefits if you had any? Are they going to pull the same nonsense they pulled on the students. I'm talking about school loans. If you declare bankruptcy, will it clear the debit? I suspect it won't. Can they harass you? I do not see how there would be an advantage in paying a penalty if an opportunity for insurance exists. Going to the ER in an emergency when you could have made a doctors appointment months earlier doesn't make sense unless you had no choice. As I've already pointed out I'm concerned with them claiming that they have made "affordable" insurance available when they haven't, having made all sorts of assumptions that in general aren't true. When a thing violates your principles for example it isn't an option. The government is more than happy to rape you.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 11:07:38 PM)
In further response to what joether wrote earlier, I do not regard for example the statement "The government is more than happy to rape you." as an ideological assertion. I regard it as a factual assertion. Is it possible for government to become a friend to the people? That is ideological since it is vague. The statement "The government is more than happy to rape you." is actually specific. It is easily demonstrated. If you think government is warm and fuzzy, you aren't thinking clearly. Perhaps years from now due to say the Obama administration, it will be. Unfortunately, that is a speculative assertion. You would be confusing what is with what could be.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (6/30/2012 11:26:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The inversion results in a denial. Our existence is denied. Perhaps what the Supreme Court is hoping to do is to bring some of the benefits enjoyed by corporations to individuals and they reasoned that by declaring corporations persons they could make this come true. It may be true in some sense, persons in a sense may be corporations. What is clearly dangerous is to lose sight of the distinction between people and corporations altogether since this could only serve to deny our humanity ultimately. It is like claiming that the mind of man is perfectly plastic, like clay that never sets. That was the argument I recall that was an idea that was advanced in the book 1984 written by George Orwell. Corporations eternal beings, medical care as a means to make us more resemble eternal beings. There is something that is worrisome about this. Is it Kosher?

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (7/1/2012 3:24:09 AM)
What came before corporatism? Wealthy people. Wealthy people are different from ordinary folk. They have the money to solve problems. People can be compensated. The middle class approach is to solve problems by abstaining from activities that are costly. The wealthy need not be so constrained. Wealthy People to Corporatism to Corporations are People. What do you get? Wealthy People = People.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (7/1/2012 3:30:33 AM)
I believe it was A. Lincoln who first warned of the dangers of the courts giving corporations equal standing in courts as individuals/citizens. His prediction this would destroy the Republic took longer than he thought, but is obviously about finished.

BenevolentM -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (7/1/2012 4:44:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 I believe it was A. Lincoln who first warned of the dangers of the courts giving corporations equal standing in courts as individuals/citizens. His prediction this would destroy the Republic took longer than he thought, but is obviously about finished. It is unclear to me how to interpret the equation that I wrote. I can think of two interpretations: Only wealthy people are people or all people are potentially wealthy. Can you be more specific concerning what A. Lincoln said? What led him to this conclusion? How did he foresee it coming?

Nosathro -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (7/1/2012 8:26:45 AM)
I normally do not agree with Donald Trump, but this is one time I do "Let me get this straight . . . … We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care Plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!! What the hell could possibly go wrong?"

Musicmystery -> RE: Affordable Care Act and Its Implementation (7/1/2012 8:28:01 AM)
In a country where glib passes for logic.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875