Hey You... Yeah, you! The one complaining about the Healthcare Reform Bill...

Originally posted by 12.13.2012

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

 

You know Obama has spent more already than bush in his entire presidency right?

But what do we have to show for Bush's tenure? 2 wars and the patriot act. At least with Obama, we have something tangible.

Oh, we'll have something tangible (as a result of this) alright- say hello to your RFID chips.

*sorry, I meant to quote AggieMan

[edit on 22-3-2010 by 12.13.2012]

You do know obama also supports the partriot act too right? he said he didn't when he began the race for presidency but when he was the only democrat left he then said he does support the patriot act so its no change their

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

HERE HERE!!!!!!!!

ok
in australia we have to pay taxes but we get free healthcare from this and it is a huge bennefit to everyone..
im not understanding why this is so bad ? can someone explain to me why it is bad

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by tsloan
WOW...Stop the presses...God forbid we give up 3 stealth bombers to allow others to have...well make everyone have health care...I mean far be it from me that health care helps people..stealth bombers KILL people... As if our country needs to build any thing more to spread a little more destruction across the globe in the name of freedom.

That's might be all well and good if the DOD was actually going to give up three stealth bombers but, they aren't going to.

And for the record, I think Bush is crap too and I didn't have any issues saying it.

Edit for decency...

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]

Originally posted by 12.13.2012
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

This is the oldest trick in tptb's playbook: "Divide and Conquer". This works so well, as it has worked so well for a very, very long time. And that is JUST ONE of the elites' very creative tools of mass manipulation.

* I was meaning to quote this part you wrote:
And...let's say that Americans did stand up and do something. It would probably be violent as opposed to an intelligent and peaceful movement. Additionally, We would put ourselves in the worst bind imaginable because of our own little internal divisions (democrat vs repub. black vs white. Rich vs poor) that there wouldn't be much left for the government to fight because we'd all murder each other before ever reaching what we perceived as the "enemy."


[edit on 22-3-2010 by 12.13.2012]

I agree. It seems that we fall for the same garbage over and over again.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

yawn,


we are not any other country, we are america...


www.usconstitution.net...


please read this and get educated..

somehow debate this and explain to us Americans on how we should sound and talk and act like all the other countries we founded ourselves against..

when in rome, dress as your in rome..

bottumline understand the history of the country you live in..

then you decide what is wrong or right for the country you live in..

I suggest those who do not like what America, is to move to another country..

those who wanna change the facts... Deny the idea of what America is..

Originally posted by cmaracing
where was the voice of the majority when we invaded Iraq which has cost us more than the health care will ever cost.

you don't remember? I do:

"We are going to war, and either you are with us, or your against us" -george bush, on national tv announcement.

Dude(Bush-n-co.) managed to punk out the entire world..lol...americans included. I know I spoke out and people looked fear stricken, then would angrily retort: " your unpatriotic! "

Bullocks......I think that was the time the veil was snatched off my face, exposing me to the fact that the dirt this and other nations do under the guise of "national security/interests" and whatever else you care to throw in, isn't for the citizens. Besides, the majority of citizens don't want to get their hands dirty to see things right. Those that do, are few.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


One fatal flaw in your argument....

You assumed that we weren't already pissed off about what Bush and his cronies were doing. I've never cared for any of them.

Other than that, I agree with you for the most part. The badies are going to need the health insurance after a few ticked off farmers start heading to town with their shotguns, fed up with all the bull that they have to put up with.

Originally posted by cmaracing
where was the voice of the majority when we invaded Iraq which has cost us more than the health care will ever cost.

you don't remember? I do:

"We are going to war, and either you are with us, or your against us" -george bush, on national tv announcement.

Dude(Bush-n-co.) managed to punk out the entire world..lol...americans included. I know I spoke out and people looked fear stricken, then would angrily retort: " your unpatriotic! "

Bullocks......I think that was the time the veil was snatched off my face, exposing me to the fact that the dirt this and other nations do under the guise of "national security/interests" and whatever else you care to throw in, isn't for the citizens. Besides, the majority of citizens don't want to get their hands dirty to see things right. Those that do, are few.

The citizens of this and many nations have their skirts snatched up. People are too scared to throw the scabs out of office, and will rather let their nations collapse at the hands of those responsible for all the ills of the world anyway.

read the damn bill and see what happens in it like the cutting of funds for people that are disabled and the ones that have medicaid and all that and dont say you would never need any of that because sometimes # happens

OK...I did the math and I'm back to report my situation.

Brief history...my family of four pays our own medical bills as the needs arise and don't have health insurance. Not by choice...but due to financial situations. We go to the doctor for annual check-ups for myself, my wife and my two daughters. In short...we pay for ourselves and get regular check-ups.

If I "did my homework" correctly, since we make more than $29,327 a year, we don't get Medicaid. But since we make less than $88,200 we do get "subsidies on a sliding scale". That apparently means that the insurance will cover at least 60% of the medical costs. This will cost us 3% to 9.5% of our annual income.

So here is the result.

1. In 2009, we paid about $3500 for medical, prescriptions, dental and vision for all four of us....out of pocket...for 100% of our bills.

2. This new bill may cost us $4000 a year and only cover 60% of our bills. So...it could cost us about $5400 a year...$1900 more than it does now.

3. Or...I could not buy the insurance and pay a 2.5% penalty ($1000) on top of the $3500 I pay. That is a total of $4500 out of pocket.

So...as a family of four that makes around $40,000 a year, they will be taking somewhere between $1000 and $1900 additional out of our pockets, our mouths, away from my children's schooling, etc., etc.

OK...I get it now...and I hope you understand why I say FU OBAMA & CONGRESS!

[edit on 3/22/2010 by WeAreAWAKE]

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


This is an excellent overview of the implementation of this new Healthcare Law:

blogs.alternet.org...

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


You didn't count the other half. Feds are only paying for half, they are making the states pick up the other half.

Edited to add: It sucks, i feel for ya dude, i am pretty much in the same boat.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Nicademus]

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Nicademus]

Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

 

This is an excellent overview of the implementation of this new Healthcare Law:

blogs.alternet.org...

Drew...

Thank you for the additional, long-term fear of the company I work for possibly going out of business or pay $2000 per employee (ha-ha). I can breathe a sigh of relief at that point because though I won't have two pennies to rub together...I'll be healthy as hell when I blow my brains out from inside my cardboard box...if they don't take my gun. Hmmmm?

Just adding some humor.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


As you say, your figures are approximate at this point and the new system could well cost you less or more

Currently, your family is paying its own way

Currently, you and your spouse are working (?)

Curently, no-one in your family is suffering a life-threatening condition, doesn't need expensive surgery, etc.

In the future however, neither you nor your spouse may be working

So, perhaps the new system is attempting to address your family's future by requiring you --- at the moment --- to pay possibly more if/when the Bill is conclusively passed, than you pay currently

Because -- in the future -- your family may have no income at all with which to pay your medical costs as you do now (cash)

And in the future, you or some member of your family may develop a condition that would bankrupt your entire family, were you to attempt to pay for treatment out of your pocket as you currently do

In the future, when you're aged and unemployed, it will be the taxpayers who will be paying your medical costs ?

So perhaps in the years between now and the point you're unable to afford to pay your medicals --- you will be required to contribute to those who're just a few years ahead of you, i.e., the unemployed and aged of today ?

Does that sound fair to you ?

Will it sound fair to you when you're 63, sick and unemployed/unemployable and WANT your medicine, WANT a doctor to make your pain go away ?

Would it sound fair to you if one of your children was involved in an accident and had to be airlifted to expensive surgery which you could never afford ? Or if one of your children produced a child of their own with severe medical problems, in a few years time ?

Do you feel that the new health system is in effect, an investment in your own and your family's future health care ?

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Dock9]

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE

# Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50 percent of what they pay for their employees’ health insurance.

# By 2014, all Americans must have health care coverage or pay a fine. Subsidies would be offered to help those making less than $44,000 or $88,000 for a family of four, afford insurance. Fines would be $95 in 2014, gradually rising to $695 by 2016, or up to 2.5 percent of income.

Up to $40 billion in tax credits would be offered to help companies buy insurance for their workers.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 22-3-2010 by drew hempel]

This is why this bill, and pretty much every bill for the past 10 years has been bad.

The Most Important Chart of the Century

THE Most Important Chart of the CENTURY
The latest U.S. Treasury Z1 Flow of Funds report was released on March 11, 2010, bringing the data current through the end of 2009. What follows is the most important chart of your lifetime. It relegates almost all modern economists and economic theory to the dustbin of history. Any economic theory, formula, or relationship that does not consider this non-linear relationship of DEBT and phase transition is destined to fail.

It explains the "jobless" recoveries of the past and how each recent economic cycle produces higher money figures, yet lower employment. It explains why we are seeing debt driven events that circle the globe. It explains the psychological uneasiness that underpins this point in history, the elephant in the room that nobody sees or can describe.

This is a very simple chart. It takes the change in GDP and divides it by the change in Debt. What it shows is how much productivity is gained by infusing $1 of debt into our debt backed money system.

Back in the early 1960s a dollar of new debt added almost a dollar to the nation’s output of goods and services. As more debt enters the system the productivity gained by new debt diminishes. This produced a path that was following a diminishing line targeting ZERO in the year 2015. This meant that we could expect that each new dollar of debt added in the year 2015 would add NOTHING to our productivity.

Then a funny thing happened along the way. Macroeconomic DEBT SATURATION occurred causing a phase transition with our debt relationship. This is because total income can no longer support total debt. In the third quarter of 2009 each dollar of debt added produced NEGATIVE 15 cents of productivity, and at the end of 2009, each dollar of new debt now SUBTRACTS 45 cents from GDP!

This is mathematical PROOF that debt saturation has occurred. Continuing to add debt into a saturated system, where all money is debt, leads only to future defaults and to higher unemployment.

reply to post by Nicademus


www.businessinsider.com...

The only question is whether the bondholders appropriately bear those losses, or whether the public bears them inappropriately. A continued policy of protecting all of these bondholders would eventually require U.S. citizens to be put on the hook for something on the order of $10-14 trillion. We are nowhere near the end of this process.

Dock9...

You are obviously correct...over the long run. What you aren't taking into account is "today". That $1000 to $1900 is a huge part of our income and could put us in a dire situation...today. I'll worry about tomorrow, plan and increase my income (I'm a former computer programmer, replaced by the influx of foreign employees back in 2002).

A plan that hopes to promise a rosy future, that injures or kills today...is of no use to me. So I could loose my home...today. I could loose my car...today, causing me to loose my job...today, so that I can be healthy tomorrow???

I would prefer to be left alone. This change isn't doing anything for me, but causing damage.

reply to post by WeAreAWAKE


Well it is admirable of you to reject subsidies from the new Healthcare Law!

Subsidies would be offered to help those making less than $44,000 or $88,000 for a family of four, afford insurance.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by drew hempel]