It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Under GOP control, Senate finally passes bill to repeal Affordable Care Act

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Well, fine, we have quite a good health care insurance




posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: buckwhizzle
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is what I mean by non-profit:

A nonprofit organization or organisation (see spelling differences) (NPO, also known as a non-business entity[1]) is an organization that uses its surplus revenues to further achieve its purpose or mission, rather than distributing its surplus income to the organization's shareholders (or equivalents) as profit or dividends. This is known as the distribution constraint.[2] The decision to adopt a nonprofit legal structure is one that will often have taxation implications, particularly where the nonprofit seeks income tax exemption, charitable status and so on.

en.m.wikipedia.org...







Ok so now what non profit companies produce the things hospitals need to care for people ?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

What is happening to your brain is exposure to critical thinking....why don't YOU leave and come back when you understand economic theory and the mechanisms for both communism and socialism.
How many times must I explain to Progressives that both Lenin and Marx stated that socialism leads to communism.

Lenin: "The goal of socialism is communism" www.brainyquote.com...

Here shows that even in Lenin's mind there was no clear delineation between communism and the socialist state

But Lenin saw in Russia the potential, and desperate need, for socialism. The oppression endured by the Russian people was extreme. Peasants barely survived tilling the fields of wealthy landlords, and workers labored 14-hour days in the industrial sweatshops of Russia’s capitalists. Frequent uprisings against these conditions rocked city and countryside, and the people were open to revolutionary ideas. Lenin and the Russian Communist Party (the Bolsheviks) showed the people that the source of their oppression was capitalism, and the solution lay in socialism.



Lenin took Marx’s views and further developed them. Marx held that under socialism the government would be a dictatorship of the proletariat. The working class, the most politically advanced class, would rule society and lead the other laboring classes – the petty bourgeoisie and the peasants – in building socialism and stopping the bourgeoisie from regaining power.
What role was this vast majority to play in the new government? Lenin held that in Russia the peasantry must be an integral part of the socialist government, because of their numbers and because the peasants, especially the poor peasants, overwhelmingly supported socialism. He explained that given Russia’s particular conditions, a dictatorship of the proletariat and poor peasantry was needed.[4]

Lenin’s conception of socialist government was an example of his creativity. Some “orthodox” Marxists of the time opposed the peasants’ participation in government, claiming it violated Marxism and would corrupt the government with the peasants’ petty bourgeois ideology. But Lenin held that these critics failed to understand Russian reality and underestimated the revolutionary sentiments of the peasantry. Their approach would narrow the government’s base of support and ensure its eventual downfall. Lenin won most of the party to his view.

The new socialist government set up in Russia after the victory of the revolution was composed of mass organizations called Soviets, councils democratically elected by workers, peasants and soldiers. The Soviets arose spontaneously in 1905 during a democratic uprising, but were suppressed when that revolution failed. Soviets re-emerged in 1917 as the popular struggle intensified.



www.marxists.org...

So interesting Lenin was about setting up a socialist state in Russia....but you thought it was just communist....understand now? (or you thought soviet style communism wasn't really communist-ive heard that one before)
And apparently the CATO Inst agrees with me on the progressive income tax and on what the Founding Fathers thought

In 1848 Marx and Engels proposed that progressive taxation be used “to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.” Although communism has failed, the idea of progressive taxation, as a means of achieving “social justice,” remains ingrained in the modern liberal psyche.
A progressive income tax violates the very heart and soul of the Framer’s Constitution of liberty. Our constitutional democracy rests on the principles that individuals are equal under the law, that consent is the basis of just laws, and that the powers of the federal government are strictly limited. None of those principles are consistent with taxing incomes at progressively higher rates. The Supreme Court struck down early attempts to legislate a federal income tax, until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913. When the first income tax was passed by Congress in 1894, the New York Times called the legislation, “a vicious, inequitable, unpopular, impolitic, and socialistic act,” and the Washington Post added, “It is an abhorrent and calamitous monstrosity.”

www.cato.org...
So there the Cato Ins is using the terms socialism and communism interchangeable when referring to a Progressive income tax which IS socialist.

any questions ?
edit on 5-12-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

when my mom was uninsured and diagnosed with stage iii b cell lymphoma it was incredibly stressful. a few hundred hoops to jump through, a ream of paperwork to fill out, and enough signatures to cause carpal tunnel....but we got her treatment and effected a rather unlikely cure.

I would have been willing to fist fight the biggest sumbitch in that hospital
. But that wasn't necessary. I DID have to be a little more assertive a few times along the way, and I ended up taking over the management of her care and finances at that point.

The thing is: we are pretty smart folks. And if you are pretty smart, navigating the minefield of treatment isn't quite impossible. She got extraordinarily lucky on the after care part, as she got fast tracked for medicare coverage because of a doctor making a mistake reading one of her PET scans. Of course, the downside was that we were all made to believe that she would die in 2 weeks. But since that didn't happen, i guess the ending was happy all the way around.


But yes, we agree on what the goal is: to help people.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I'm not sure you understand what "critical thinking" means.

Economic theory? Do you support supply-side economics?

How many times must I explain to you flag-stroking maniacs that your society already IS socialistic, and that the "Waah, waah, Socialism!" line has been used since the 1930's. Except a large part of your socialistic aspects tend to be aimed at helping corporations rather than people, and the same people who whine about medicare and social security seem fine with the Government bailing out for-profit organisations.

If the goal of Socialism is Communism then the goal of Capitalism is Fascism.

I really don't understand why you're using progressive as an implied insult, by the way. It's like using "brain damaged" as a compliment. Just illogical.

I do not disagree that pure Socialism is a bad thing. Pure anythingism tends to be bad and lead to extremism. However, to totally reject it because of Cold War propaganda is beyond stupid.


edit on 5/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons

edit on 5/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Mysterious Reasons



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Ok Ive had enough of your histrionic bloviating....

but for the record the failure of the Soviet State was directly related to problems stemming from the attempt to run things from centralized control.
This thread was about the GOP setting up a bill to repeal the ACA. I posted that Lenin believed that socialized medicine was the keystone to a socialist state...people in this thread are suggesting that single payer is a good thing....single payer is socialist and socialism in Lenins own words leads to communism. NOW any questions?

And yes supply side is infinitely better than socialism. In the US today we have what the college textbooks call "a mixed economy". That involves several mechanisms, some socialist, some capitalist involving Keynesian mechanisms....but you knew that already right...
www.investopedia.com...
Unfortunately Marxist's abject hatred of capitalism never seems to make the distinction between crony capitalism and true free enterprise.
edit on 6-12-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sure peoples opinions are going to change drastically when they find out the penalty for not having health care during tax season, I think its $695s per person


$695 is a fraction of what I would pay in premiums for a policy with a deductible so high I'd never in a billion years reach it. over $200 per month just for my little self and a $12,000 deductible? Nah. I'll take the fine any day.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
I do ACA insurance. Based on what you told. A single man 37 (I guessed his age) making 18,000 would qualify for a plan that costs $49 a month, has a $900 deductible and a maximum out of pocket cost to them of $1,500. They qualify for a monthly subsidy for the premium payment bUT also get Cost Sharing Reductions as well which reduces the deductible, Co payments and out of pocket maximums. There should have been no way your friend could have rung up that amount of costs had they used the plan they had correctly. If your friend would like help I can help them get an appropriate plan. People need to be aware of how the Affordable Care Act really works and how it can benefit them


He's a bit younger than that but I don't imagine that would change much. I should include he's a heavy smoker.

To be honest, I'm not sure what plan he has now if any. Previously he had Medicaid+Medicare, but his job caused his income to rise and he lost that. It's not hard to wrack up those costs though, once losing Medicaid just his catheters cost $800ish per month. Then the physical therapy, treatment for blood clots, and other issues he had. I assume his current plan is to just discharge them in bankruptcy since it's way more than he could ever pay.

I just took a look on Anthem, the best matched plan they had in his condition (as best as I know it to look) is $193.55/month with $1650 max out of pocket. Since he will hit the max out of pocket that's $3972.60 per year.

When you look at the typical expenses
600 rent
150 food
150 car
100 utilities

You already get to $1000 per month or $12,000 per year. At 18,000 the tax rates between city/state/local work out to about $3000 in taxes. So just right there, $12,000 in living expenses, $3000 in taxes, and $4000 in medical costs simply doesn't work at $18k income. Which is right back to why he has to stop working, then he can get a rent subsidy and have his medical expenses covered.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: riiver

The government fining people for not having health insurance is insidious and Draconian. Might as well have the King's army occupying. This is not the Founding Fathers vision f Liberty for America. Our liberties are constantly being eroded by ignorant politicians and Progressive policies.
Another bill I just found out about by GOP being considered is to change an Act from 2002 to stop federal agencies like FDA from being able to do armed raids against harmless groceries selling raw milk. Let's see what the statists here on ats say about that.
edit on 6-12-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Well they at least tried to do what they promised during the last election. Even though it will not go anywhere, it's all on the democrats shoulders now.

This is also a snapshot of what a bernie sanders presidency will look like. Most of his bills will die in the other branches of government.


Snapshot of what a Ted Cruz presidency (or any of the other clown-car conservitard candidates for that matter) would look like too. We are too far gone as a nation to ever come together on anything. We should probably get a divorce.

The only thing the TP Repub's have done for 5 years is try to repeal the ACA. Not a single infrastructure bill, no movement on veterans care, suicide or homelessness, nada.

Give Jesus-land back to the Tea Party. They can be a bible-thumpin' third world Libertarian paradise on their own dime.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

as I posted last nite, Lenin said that socialized health care is the keystone to a socialist state so if we just repeal ACA that would be some accomplishment.
thanks
and by the way the TP is not about Jesus it' about stopping socialism in its tracks and bringing this country back to something of what the Founders envisioned instead of all this insane statist stuff. If that means enduring the hatred of anti Christian haters then so be it.

edit on 6-12-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
Obama care needs to be killed so we can start from scratch to fix the healthcare system in America.

And who's going to fix your healthcare?



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

as I posted last nite, Lenin said that socialized health care is the keystone to a socialist state so if we just repeal ACA that would be some accomplishment.
thanks



The ACA is no where near socialist in nature. If it was a universal program or single-payer, then it would be. But forcing people to buy a service from a private corporation or pay a fine is not socialist.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It's a Fabian step toward single payer and has the roots of Draconian Totalitarian state controlled mechanism. Even the Soviet Union wasn't entirely state controlled at the very height of their communist experiment.
Today we have the model of public-private partnerships. So instead lets just talk Agenda 21 if you don't accept the definition of socialism. I have to be somewhere for a while but Im definitely up for a discussion of that. In fact Rosa Koire (a democrat) calls it Communitarianism...

Rosa Koire site
edit on 6-12-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: spell check gone wild



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
You can call this a GOP venture, but I think democrats that want to get re-elected might be willing to sacrifice this failed experiment in order to feast on the 'no more business as usual' snap-back happening in this country. king obama promised hope and change and the most transparent administration ever. He provided neither. It wouldn't take a big leap of faith to believe some democrats are going to capitalize on the disillusionment of the masses. It could happen.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Metallicus
Obama care needs to be killed so we can start from scratch to fix the healthcare system in America.

And who's going to fix your healthcare?


Imagine if everyone had worked together to make the ACA work.

What a concept.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Well they at least tried to do what they promised during the last election. Even though it will not go anywhere, it's all on the democrats shoulders now.

This is also a snapshot of what a bernie sanders presidency will look like. Most of his bills will die in the other branches of government.


Snapshot of what a Ted Cruz presidency (or any of the other clown-car conservitard candidates for that matter) would look like too. We are too far gone as a nation to ever come together on anything. We should probably get a divorce.

The only thing the TP Repub's have done for 5 years is try to repeal the ACA. Not a single infrastructure bill, no movement on veterans care, suicide or homelessness, nada.

Give Jesus-land back to the Tea Party. They can be a bible-thumpin' third world Libertarian paradise on their own dime.


But then who would subsidize your ACA, the entire purpose of this argument? It seems you havent thought this one all the way through. Someday you libs will realize youre poor for a reason.
edit on 6-12-2015 by milom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn






already IS socialistic, and that the "Waah, waah, Socialism!" line has been used since the 1930's. Except a large part of your socialistic aspects tend to be aimed at helping corporations rather than people,

Ask me if I care whether it's corporate welfare or the welfare state for the collective society Yes I'm aware of the socialist mechanisms since FDRs New Deal so does that mean I'm supposed to give in and go with that flow ? I think not. Antony Sutton explains that in the Hegelian dialectic of the Elites(he was talking about SKull and Bones) the synthesis is neither right nor left and the result is the NWO. I hope that explains my position a bit more clearly .

I see many here complain bitterly about corporate welfare but think that individuals in society should receive welfare. What is the difference? In the end it's still income redistribution which is socialist and socialism leads to communism, or today let us use Rosa Koire's term communitarianism, which sound less scary than the communist gulags of yesterday,
edit on 6-12-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

edit on 6-12-2015 by milom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Metallicus
Obama care needs to be killed so we can start from scratch to fix the healthcare system in America.

And who's going to fix your healthcare?


Imagine if everyone had worked together to make the ACA work.

What a concept.

You mean if Michelle hadn't flubbed up the official website by outsourcing to her friend in Canada, if the big boss hadn't made exemptions for his favorite peeps, if only businesses didn't stop hiring full time... Even if the whole GOP had voted for it how would that have changed it? The ACA is what it is because the Democrats made it that way.
edit on 6-12-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join