How many of you...?

[d4m.test]

I don't know, in what village you live, but I live in second biggest city in US, and I've seen tons of lazy jerks, living on welfare FOR GENERATIONS. And I've seen by my own eyes, how people buy booze, using EBC cards. So, who da fak YOU are, to tell me, what is true, or what is bullshit? Oh, I forgot... You are just a 16 years old sucker, who never knew real life.

For every one person on welfare using foodstamps to buy booze and drugs, there is one successful person exploiting the system for undeserved tax breaks while exploiting cheap labour of their employees. Citing examples from your life is pointless. There's bad and lazy people on both sides of the political fence.

Left hates right. Right hates left. Both sides want to do as little work as possible. Both sides want as much money for their own reasons as possible. It's funny how similar both sides are. Just a bunch of angry hypocrites. The angrier they are, the more hypocritical they are.

Never once have I seen someone that said:

Sure, we are generous people, and we should help less fortunate. It should be voluntary, not a robbery.

put their money where their mouth is. I'm in the world of entrepreneurship and charities, so I know the stats and they're really s#itty. I'm not incredibly wealthy, but I'm well off enough that I could buy a new gen Rolex or sometimes an AP every year with the money that I choose to personally donate to various charities. I also believe donations and money to social causes should be voluntary, but I also know that 99% of people would never voluntarily do it. I rub shoulders with some pretty successful businessmen in many situations, and it's funny how their views change from fascism to socialism depending on how it suits their needs. I've been on (and still on) various boards for charities that receive donations that have so many expenses and strings attached that we'd be better off without the donation. I've seen a room full of successful people collude with each other during a charity auction to prevent "overly high" bidding on big ticket items. I'll take a welfare bum shooting up his welfare check over a greedy tycoon any day.

So what does this have to do with Obamacare? Absolutely nothing. It's all hate mongering.

All people are lazy.
All people are stupid.
All people are selfish.

Those three things are more definite than death and taxes. Obamacare isn't ruining your country. People are.

 

[thedoover]

For every one person on welfare using foodstamps to buy booze and drugs, there is one successful person exploiting the system for undeserved tax breaks while exploiting cheap labour of their employees.

Here is where I would disagree in that statement. What you say is a tax exploit is what I would say is taking advantage of the law. Now if you mean outright violation of the law, thats different and you and I would agree. But if someone is shrewdly investing to protect their assets for themselves and their heirs, then more power to them. The idea that I have to pay taxes on the money I make, and then when I pass it on to my heirs the government gets to take another cut is abhorrent to me, and its double taxation.

I would also go back to my statements about the free market and say that exploiting cheap labor can mean a lot. If you mean hiring immigrants that are in the country illegally that you can pay less than is legally required, again we agree. But if you mean paying what the market will bear legally, that is fine with me.

RWI political disclaimer...I am arguing against a position, not a person. We are still brothers with a watch addiction.

 

[d4m.test]

It's all shades of grey. Not the romantic bondage type of course. While I said "undeserved" tax break, that can apply to legal and illegal. I feel that people shouldn't use the system if they don't need to.

If I go to McDonald's to eat lunch, I can take dozens of free ketchup pouches if I want to. I don't do that because I don't need them. Anyone who's ever done corporate taxes knows that every tax break applied for involves some degree of lie or exaggeration. If there's a tax break staring me in the face I'll obviously take it, but I'm not going to twist and spin the truth in the process.

If someone wants to sell their $100 food stamps for $50 of booze and eat at a soup kitchen for free, it's unfortunate but just as legitimate as many white collar corporate decisions.

The problem here is that private insurance companies can obviously afford to comply with new legislation with no price increase, they just chose not to. They'd rather make $1 profit from each person rather than $0.50 from twice as many people. There was an opportunity for private insurance to increase volume while decreasing profit percentage to a fair amount. They instead chose to send cancellations and increase prices to maintain or increase profit percentages. Greedy. It's to bad Obamacare is having such a rough start. If they can get their act together the other insurance companies would be forced to follow suit in order to stay competitive in the market.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[thedoover]

While I said "undeserved" tax break, that can apply to legal and illegal. I feel that people shouldn't use the system if they don't need to.

The problem is the word need. They dont need to make any profit at all, and can just fold up and go out of business. Or you could argue they need to get every ounce of profit legally profitable, to remain competitive, stay in business, and maximize returns for shareholders or business owners. Need is a relative term in this case.

And I believe most of the cancellations are due to the fact that existing policies dont meet the law's minimum standard requirements. Not just because an insurance company can. Im not saying that doesnt happen either, but all of the anecdotal evidence Ive seen or heard points to meeting minimum standards.

Selling your food stamps for whatever, booze or anything else is the same as a white collar decision as long as its legal. When either party crosses the line of legality then clearly I disagree with it.

 

[ibmx2]

just to keep things moving :hehehe:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/obamacare-ads-colorado_n_4261448?1384286086

http://www.doyougotinsurance.com/

 

[Luthier]

So, what the fak just happened???
Bye-bye, Obamacare? Is it the beginning of the end of it?
Somebody, smarter, than me (64,999 of such a people here... ), please, explain me in plain English, what just Big Bossa did?
:rofl:

 

[electric]

Without competition the insurance companies took no time to stick their invisible d's in the country's behind. So many dropped policies (Obama's promise broken) and insurance rate hikes and premium hikes. The idea is good, the environment for it though is toxic. We have been hoodwinked. How is it okay to make the country get insured and then make us pay far more then we were before for far less coverage. No wonder only 160,000 Americans signed up. Props to them for being the first ones screwed by Obamacare.

At least we still have privacy, free speech, the ten amendments..........................oh shoot wait a minute.

 

[Luthier]

:rofl: @electric.

"Even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got."
— Bill Clinton, Nov. 12


WASHINGTON — So the former president asserts that the current president continues to dishonor his "you like your plan, you can keep your plan" pledge. And calls for the Affordable Care Act to be changed, despite furious White House resistance to the very idea.
Coming from the dean of the Democratic Party, this one line marked the breaching of the dam. It legitimized the brewing rebellion of panicked Democrats against Obamacare. Within hours, that rebellion went loudly public. By Thursday, President Obama had been forced into a rear-guard holding action, asking insurers to grant a one-year extension of current plans.
The damage to the Obama presidency, however, is already done. His approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, his lowest ever. And, for the first time, a majority consider him untrustworthy. That bond is not easily repaired.
At stake, however, is more than the fate of one presidency or of the current Democratic majority in the Senate. At stake is the new, more ambitious, social-democratic brand of American liberalism introduced by Obama, of which Obamacare is both symbol and concrete embodiment.
Precisely when the GOP was returning to a more constitutionalist conservatism committed to reforming, restructuring and reining in the welfare state (see, for example, the Paul Ryan Medicare reform passed by House Republicans with near unanimity), Obama offered a transformational liberalism designed to expand the role of government, enlarge the welfare state and create yet new entitlements (see, for example, his call for universal preschool in his most recent State of the Union address).
The centerpiece of this vision is, of course, Obamacare, the most sweeping social reform in the last half-century, affecting one-sixth of the economy and directly touching the most vital area of life of every citizen.
As the only socially transformational legislation in modern American history to be enacted on a straight party-line vote, Obamacare is wholly owned by the Democrats. Its unraveling would catastrophically undermine their underlying ideology of ever-expansive central government providing cradle-to-grave care for an ever-grateful citizenry.
For four years, this debate has been theoretical. Now it’s real. And for Democrats, it’s a disaster."


Call it "right wing mongering", whatever, but something is correct there...
More, than 5 millions lost their coverage.

 

[mzcool]

:rofl: @electric.

"Even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got."
— Bill Clinton, Nov. 12


WASHINGTON — So the former president asserts that the current president continues to dishonor his "you like your plan, you can keep your plan" pledge. And calls for the Affordable Care Act to be changed, despite furious White House resistance to the very idea.
Coming from the dean of the Democratic Party, this one line marked the breaching of the dam. It legitimized the brewing rebellion of panicked Democrats against Obamacare. Within hours, that rebellion went loudly public. By Thursday, President Obama had been forced into a rear-guard holding action, asking insurers to grant a one-year extension of current plans.
The damage to the Obama presidency, however, is already done. His approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, his lowest ever. And, for the first time, a majority consider him untrustworthy. That bond is not easily repaired.
At stake, however, is more than the fate of one presidency or of the current Democratic majority in the Senate. At stake is the new, more ambitious, social-democratic brand of American liberalism introduced by Obama, of which Obamacare is both symbol and concrete embodiment.
Precisely when the GOP was returning to a more constitutionalist conservatism committed to reforming, restructuring and reining in the welfare state (see, for example, the Paul Ryan Medicare reform passed by House Republicans with near unanimity), Obama offered a transformational liberalism designed to expand the role of government, enlarge the welfare state and create yet new entitlements (see, for example, his call for universal preschool in his most recent State of the Union address).
The centerpiece of this vision is, of course, Obamacare, the most sweeping social reform in the last half-century, affecting one-sixth of the economy and directly touching the most vital area of life of every citizen.
As the only socially transformational legislation in modern American history to be enacted on a straight party-line vote, Obamacare is wholly owned by the Democrats. Its unraveling would catastrophically undermine their underlying ideology of ever-expansive central government providing cradle-to-grave care for an ever-grateful citizenry.
For four years, this debate has been theoretical. Now it’s real. And for Democrats, it’s a disaster."


Call it "right wing mongering", whatever, but something is correct there...
More, than 5 millions lost their coverage.

This is a little late, they already have a solution holding the plans out until the end of 2014.

 

[Luthier]

What a relieve it is...

 

[electric]

@Luthier you can say that again!