Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

IRS will be enforcing your purchase of Health Care Insurance!

page: 12
47
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


well it is a human rights issue in the sence that no one can FORCE you to make a payment to a private company in order to recive healthcare if health care is free and already paid for by your tax money.

all human rights issues are in the field of FORCING someone to do something against its will.

in other words ,
if you have free healthcare then insurance is a cartel payment which in return is illegal and cant be forced upon anyone and is uncostitutional in american terms i assume




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 





well it is a human rights issue in the sence that no one can FORCE you to make a payment to a private company


Agreed. Slavery and compulsory servitude is a very important human rights issue. This bill is an infringement on human rights.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


If your blanket argument against universal insurance is that you think everyone who is uninsured is a self-destructive over eater or a junkie, then you are out of touch with reality and, personally I believe you have an antisocial personality disorder. Poverty has many reasons. Since you obviously failed to do this on your own, I'll explain: the term human rights issue has to do with an issue which is a source of human suffering. It isn't about civic rights as you seem to think. Go take a night course or something and think about the motto of this website.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mumbotron
 





If your blanket argument against universal insurance is that you think everyone who is uninsured is a self-destructive over eater or a junkie, then you are out of touch with reality


American's in general are obese, addicted, depressed, under-exercised, malnourished, and all around unhealthy. Is that statement out of touch with reality?



Since you obviously failed to do this on your own, I'll explain: the term human rights issue has to do with an issue which is a source of human suffering.


Hmmm. So it is your position that lack of insurance is "a source of human suffering"?




It isn't about civic rights as you seem to think. Go take a night course or something and think about the motto of this website.


Please expand on this statement.




Go take a night course or something and think about the motto of this website.


Take it easy professor. Maybe instead of your antagonistic remarks we can discuss what you perceive to be my errors. That is why I asked you to expand on your above statement.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by harvib]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Let'see , if you own a house you need to provide proof on your taxes to get the exemption, right ? If you lie to take the exemption and get caught you pay fines and penaltys!
So if you participate in the gov. health care program you need to provide information on your taxes.
Which means if you have your own insurance, you check a box on your tax form , for a DEDUCTION !
If you lie or cheat you pay fines and penaltys.
This is what happens to those who try to cheat the system.

The whole bill is on line !
Stop listening to the talking heads on TV.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


You do know legislation means nothing, don't you?

Ever hear of the IRS Code Book. Where do you think that came from? The codes are not written yet. They are still tweaking things.

Just like Pelosi said, we have to institute it before anyone knows anything about it.

And the other POS rep that said this is being installed for control of us.

Yeah, I have to trust my government.

Just like the FACT that this fall there was a Continental Congress that wanted to submit grievances and the gov had agreed to a sit down. Guess what, no SHOW!

Yeah, the IRS code should be benevolent, just like the rest of it is. At least for members of gov that get caught not paying taxes. Oh, that benevolent government.

Pfffft.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Please don't assume I like the IRS or I trust our government.

The point is this health care issue is small potatos compared to other issues like the Federal Reserve ,the banking industry and the bailout.

With capitalism and free erterprise you don't get bailed out , you fold or get bought UP.

Anyone catch the news, that after the banks got bailed out (free money) now they get to write off their losses to a tune of $12 Billion in tax REFUNDS.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


Yeah, I know this is smaller potatoes. I just love to vent a LOT.

Sorry if I came off as dismissive.

I have been thinking lately on how much money the Federal Reserve has stolen from the American People.

I came up with a theory on how to figure it out.

If the US Dollar, inflation wise has gone from $1 to 3 cents.

Now, we can take that to mean that whatever the existing quantity of dollars is, we could say times that by 33.3

So I got an amount of Dollars in existence from this site-US Dollar Money Supply Is Underreported

Just using existing dollars in circulation at the current estimate of approximately 2.75 Trillion x 33.3 we come up with a value of 91.75 Trillion for existing currency. This does not include the assets created by the years intervening the current year of 2010 all the way back to 1913.

So let us say the value of the money the Federal Reserve stole was a minimum of 1 Trillion dollars for every year of its existence in todays dollar value.

Gets one a little pissed off huh?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I don't know if this is smaller potatoes. The bail out, as corrupt as it is, was one time (each). However this legislation forces a whole nation to support a corporate industry indefinitely. Plus it sets the precedent that compulsory consumerism is acceptable. Is it much more of a reach to make the purchase of life insurance mandatory?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


You know I just read a thread where employers can put life insurance on employees without their knowledge.

So I am sure what you are stating is very likely.

You know the purpose of all these seat belt laws right? Not to save you or me, it is to save the insurance companies money.

Tobacco taxes and the like. Insurance companies.

Tanning bed tax. Insurance companies.

etc etc etc.

Look for the soda taxes to start next and anything else that could cost the insurance companies money.

This is how fascism works. You have the corporations and the government.

If you cost them money by doing anything unhealthy or unsafe, expect taxes to be implemented to offset the costs of the corporations.

I am getting really, really, really pissed off.

Our rights are going to be stripped from us for our own safety and for the profits of both government and the corporations they are aligned with.

Scary times indeed.


[edit on 3/25/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I was all for health care but I am shocked at these terms. When I was in my early 20's my job offered me health insurance, the monthly premium was about 25% of my take home pay and I would still be liable for all kinds of deductables an co-pays. I did not take it. It sickens me that insurance companies can get away with selling health insurance that is extremly costly with an unreasonable amount of deductions and co-pays. Now it appears to me that this bill will force low to middle class citizens to purchase those same health insurance plans. It is scary to think that will be forced on anyone. I do not believe the citizens of the United States will allow this to happen.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


I agree with your whole post except, sadly, for this line:


I do not believe the citizens of the United States will allow this to happen.




[edit on 25-3-2010 by harvib]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
Now it appears to me that this bill will force low to middle class citizens to purchase those same health insurance plans.


I doubt you're going to hear complaints from people who had no chance of affording health insurance, that will now get health insurance provided at govt expense.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


From this site-Health care reform bill 101: Who gets subsidized insurance?



The formula is pretty complicated. Basically, though, people who make three or four times the poverty level would get enough federal money so that they would not have to pay more than about 10 percent of their income for a decent health insurance package.


So, if you are about 300-400% at poverty level 32,490.00-43,320.00 for a single person. You will pay 10% of your income for insurance.


I do not think ANYONE is going to get totally free health care.

Sorry folks. This is not free health care. Whoever told you that, is wrong.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Health care is big business and those in control are not going to give up the big money. Urgent cares are opening up every where, in Walgreens, in super markets, in malls and shopping centers. With baby boomers reaching retirement age there is a HUGE demand for health care and a ton of money to be made. So wth rising medical costs (profits)and higher demand for services someone has to pay for it and since so many have lost their jobs , benefits and pensions the money has to come from some where.
You really don't expect the pharmacutical companys to reduce their profits,
or doctors and hospitals to reduce their profits ? Insurance companys shouldn't have to pay the whole bill, higher copays and higher deductables will keep profits up, investers demand it.

America is a capitalistic freemarket, the government should not regulate business to control profits and greed.
Profits come first.
So the government health care program is not about the health of Americans or your tax money it is about the governments concern that free enterprise continues to flurish and prospers in America.

The bill passed ,the free market did not have to reduce it's profits, more americans will get medical coverage and all americans share the burden(just the tax payer).

GOD BLESS AMERICA , THE LAND OF THE FREE (ENTERPRISE) !



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 





America is a capitalistic freemarket, the government should not regulate business to control profits and greed.
Profits come first.
So the government health care program is not about the health of Americans or your tax money it is about the governments concern that free enterprise continues to flurish and prospers in America.


You talk about "free" market and "free" enterprise. You seem to indicate that the "Government" is protecting the free market through this legislation. However how can a market be free if the consumer is forced to participate in it.

You make the point that a market can't be free if profit margins are regulated. Agreed. However it also isn't free if demand is created through threat of life, liberty, and/ or property.

What is more corrupt then forcing individuals to support a corporate industry and giving the industry free reign on profit margins.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Exactly, this is a forced corporatist system. It use to be called fascist.

The corporations the government allows to exist, get huge profits. They have their mafia hit men(government) control the competition.

And people THINK this is free markets. Amazing.

Tax and Control is all the government can do. They cannot do anything else. They do not produce anything, they do not help anything, they only TAX and CONTROL.

How is that working for everyone out there so far?

[edit on 3/26/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Free enterprise needs to work unfettered to work properly.
As the economy began to fail in 2009 and profits began to fall the government moved to slow bankruptcys (for tax payers) to keep profits up.
As more people lost their jobs credit card companys changed their terms and interest rates, even for those who made their payments on time . The government did step in to regulate (a little) and made sure the credit card companys had time to increase their profits before regulations kicked in.
Forclosures were on the rise, banks are in business to loan money, it's not their fault the economy was failing and their lending practices were a little shakey.
Then came the bailout and just before the Nov. election, G.W. Bush ushered in The Bank Bailout to save the country from ruin. Oh , unemployed americans were thrown a bone just before Christmas (to lift saging sales) with an unemployment extension.
And now in 2010 after the bailout (and the bonuses) the banks get to write off their losses and get a tax refund check( banks will get 12 BILLION in refunds) but the unemployed will not get another extention. Where should the money come from? Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for those who are bleeding the system. Why Ken Delay said the unemployed don't really want to work till their benefits run out.
The common man/ woman live beyond their means, they are materialistic and disposalable society.
America has the largest prison populations in the world.
What does that say about us as a people?
People can be replaced !
The common man are useless eaters or cannon fodder.
Business must continue to grow and prosper without any controls.
Profits are #1!



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 





Business must continue to grow and prosper without any controls. Profits are #1!


For what purpose. Why must business continue to grow? When most people state that they want business to grow it is because they believe it will result in a Nation of individuals who live free of poverty. Is this your position?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


Unfortunately, that is the entire idea. If they can whittle down the "displaced " voters who can not pay for insurance, who are mostly people that oppose healthcare, then add to the population the amnesty granted illegal workers, then the chances of winning the next election goes way up. the point is to incrimidate as many opposition voters as possible to make them inelgilible.





new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join