Originally posted by dadudemon
You did not directly address what his question asked.What you're talking about is the poverty level: anyone less than 4x the poverty level will obtain an exemption of some kind. At less than poverty level, you're exempt, entirely. BUT!...you can be exempt on religious grounds, too! 😄
But there is the set of people that still cannot afford Obamacare but are greater than 4x the poverty level: pretty much every middle class American that does not have insurance, currently.
Why? Because very few people can afford to increase their monthly/yearly costs by hundreds of dollars a month.
I found the Obamacare chart premiums on the internets some where (I could not find it, again, with 30 seconds of google searching so I gave up) and it is very generous. I will benefit from Obamacare as my premium costs will decrease because I have a family of 4. Yippie! 😄
It's a function of the Federal Poverty Level and family size.
If you make less than 4x the FPL, your out of pocket insurance premium costs cannot exceed something like $8400.
That chart I was talking about shows the schedule of premium costs (But, since it is a direct function of FPL; those numbers will change).
Reading a book will not help him figure out what is going on with this legislation, necessary. Unless a book has been written on "Obamacare"?
I think her comment was more about his references, direct and indirect, towards the historical significance and implications of this legislation. I believe she feels his commentary was one of malformed historical parallels (basically, she's saying he is associating things that do not need to be associated).
Well, as I pointed out, many people will not be able to afford the penalties or insurance, currently. So it is not as though he doesn't understand it. He does understand it at least partially.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't you remember when Obama staged a failed coup then was made Vice President for no good reason which allowed him seized the reigns of power when Bush died? I bet you think we've always been at war with Eastasia, too.
The Night of the Steak Knives (aka Operation Blackbird)? Cos I saw a documentary on that once.
Okay, here are some more arguments I have against Obamacare that do not seem to be fleshed out. Warning: unless you want to know nitty gritty, this is a TL😄R.
If Car Insurance is required, why is it bad for medical insurance to be required?
Here’s why medical insurance is not optional for some: they cannot afford the medical costs necessary to save their life. Therefore, medical insurance is paramount to their survival. Being able to drive a car, however, is not paramount to one’s survival. Medical insurance may be more prudent to have but car insurance is not nearly as prudent to have as medical insurance.
More to the point...why is some forms of property insurance required but medical insurance is not?
If someone runs your mailbox over but does not have insurance, your repair costs are going to be $50-$2000, depending on how expensive your mailbox was. If someone runs you over, your medical expenses will be astronomical, assuming you survive. I say that people are too immature and ill-prepared to pay for accidental damages to their property. That is because they are unwilling to set aside money for accidental property damages: something that is manageable/doable for most middle class and above. However, no amount of financial preparation can mitigate medical bills that land you hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs. I can save and prepare for minor home damages and car damages: no problem. But I simply do not have the money to save for a massive medical bill. This is the difference. You could counter/retort that no one can afford to have their home destroyed and I would agree. However, most people could still live after their home was destroyed.
But what about this: Because, like the uninsured motorist who passes the cost of his/her accident onto the person they hit, uninsured patients pass the cost on to others when they fail to pay for their treatment. What about that, huh?
You are referring to the “hidden health tax”. Here are the facts:
“…The uninsured will spend $30 billion out-of-pocket for health care in 2008 while receiving $56 billion in uncompensated care, three quarters of which will be from government sources.
…
If everyone were covered, overall costs would increase by $123 billion dollars, or an additional five percent of national health spending. The analysis does not assess how much a universal coverage plan would cost the government…”
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/kcmu082508pkg.cfm
So it seems that forcing coverage on everyone would increase the cost of healthcare. So this so called “hidden health tax” is, financially, better. Now, this is not to say that I support a non-public healthcare option. I do. I want at least a single payer system with the ability to purchase private supplemental plans. However, I am not deluded into thinking that required insurance for everyone will cost me less: it won’t because it will actually increase my costs. If I am to take that argument’s implicit meaning, it is saying that the current system is forcing people to pass their costs on to me: true. However, the alternative will increase that cost, not lessen it.
So, dadudemon, if you think you know so much about this Obamacare, where in the law itself do you have problems?
Obamacare and where it fails; sometimes using specific sections. 🙂
1. Firstly, Titles I-X do not include anything about a single payer system. Major failure #1.
2. Under Title I, Section 1502, Subpart D, Subsection E, Page 153, it outlines a penalty for those that do not have adequate coverage. This already has problems because it notifies us in the same Subpart that you can exempt yourself. It is later defined as things such as religious reasons. Cool. NOT. No penalty should be assessed for any reason. The problem? See my point #1. No one should be without basic insurance, period. Even under this system, the undertaking for assessing these penalties will be difficult to enforce and it creates far more administrative work for the enforcement of the required “minimum essential coverage”. The cost of enforcing the system will most likely be greater than the money recovered from the penalties (max penalty is $695 under Obamacare). Penalties will need to be absurdly high to get a net increase in revenue to offset the “leech-like” drain on the system from the uninsured. That exact number, I have no idea.
3. The cost. It simply costs too much. It will add, according to a double blind peer reviewed study by Dr. Blahous, $340 billion to the deficit over 10 years.
4. Medicare funding will be cut, significantly, through Obamacare. From Medicare’s chief actuary, himself, it could cause the loss of 15% of providers to drop medicare coverage as seen here:
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM130_oact_memorandum_on_financial_impact_of_ppaca_as_enacted.pdf
“Simulations by Office of the Actuary suggest that roughly 15% of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments.”
5. Because of the law, insurance companies are dropping certain offerings which is definitely going to make it more difficult for an individual to comply with requirements (see my point #2 for why this requirement is a problem).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/health/policy/01insure.html?_r=2&hpw
6. Health and Human Services estimate that it will increase premium costs by an average of 7%:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-28/html/2010-15278.htm
7. There are fees and taxes on medical devices and drugs that will directly impact that costs of said objects for patients. This varies from state to state because each state has differing levels of subsidies and other benefit systems in place. The relevant sections to these fees and taxes are Section 1404, 1405, 9009, and 10904. Obviously, that is not all that could affect our medical care costs (and this affects seniors more than anyone. For instance, the estimated loss of benefits, per senior, in Louisiana is $5100. That’s LOSS of benefits for them. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69429_Page2.html).
8. The independent advisory panel will determine which medical services it likes and which it does not. This is found in section 2951, page 251, title L, subsection g. I do not think I need to go into reasons why an advisory panel is not as good of a solution as an informed decision by the patient’s direct primary care physician. If you do not know the reason why that is, ask your primary care physician what I am talking about: he or she may have thing or two to say.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
One thing is interesting: a lot of people who already have health insurance seem to think that this penalty is going to affect them. Either those for this have failed to educate or those against have waged a successful spin campaign.
I think I stated this already....but I will get nothing but benefit from Obamacare. lol!
WHHOO HOO!
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Do the drone assassinations count? (known as 'Obama's kill list'😉You already have American commentators saying they should just murder Assange outright so obviously values seem to have skewed somewhat.
if the drone assassinations were targeting Obama's political opponents in an effort to consolidate his own power...
Obama or other politicians wanting someone they consider an enemy of the state dead is sort of not related at all.
EDIT: so like, if Obama hit the major leaders of the Republican party and any Democrats who had been critical of his policy with drones, then justified it by saying it was an attempted coup, then granted himself more executive power to "fight" said "coups", it would be analogous.
Originally posted by inimalist
if the drone assassinations were targeting Obama's political opponents in an effort to consolidate his own power...Obama or other politicians wanting someone they consider an enemy of the state dead is sort of not related at all.
Still, he's defining and attacking 'his' enemies with no-one to challenge his authority or viewpoint and the public and news media are lapping it up and - with the Assange thing - mirroring his viewpoints on such matters. Hitler's Germany changed into that mind frame too and look what happened.
The enemies may be slightly different in context but the power and the scapegoating excuses Obama uses to attack whoever he sees fit without any objection is a frightening abuse of power. Hitler scapegoated against the Jews and Communists, with Obama it's the evil Muslims, course he's not going to visibly attack them in the US, that would draw to many paralells and be too obvious. That's why he does it abroad (away from the public and media) and never has to justify whether they were actually 'enemies of the state'.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Still, he's defining and attacking 'his' enemies with no-one to challenge his authority or viewpoint and the public and news media are lapping it up and - with the Assange thing - mirroring his viewpoints on such matters. Hitler's Germany changed into that mind frame too and look what happened.
Except that they're not his political enemies, which was the entire point of the Knight of the Long Knives. There's no comparison.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Hitler scapegoated against the Jews and Communists, with Obama it's the evil Muslims, course he's not going to visibly attack them in the US, that would draw to many paralells and be too obvious.
Except for him not scapegoating Muslims at all.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow ZThe enemies may be slightly different in context
Killing foreigners and one expat who have no stake in government while said people are in combat zones and/or countries a world away from the capital is not at all similar to Hitler's thugs murdering his political opponents in the streets of the nation's second city.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Still, he's defining and attacking 'his' enemies with no-one to challenge his authority or viewpoint and the public and news media are lapping it up and - with the Assange thing - mirroring his viewpoints on such matters. Hitler's Germany changed into that mind frame too and look what happened.The enemies may be slightly different in context but the power and the scapegoating excuses Obama uses to attack whoever he sees fit without any objection is a frightening abuse of power. Hitler scapegoated against the Jews and Communists, with Obama it's the evil Muslims, course he's not going to visibly attack them in the US, that would draw to many paralells and be too obvious. That's why he does it abroad (away from the public and media) and never has to justify whether they were actually 'enemies of the state'.
I think the overwhelming problem with this logic is that you are trying to shoehorn anything you can possibly think of as authoritarianism into some Hitlerian model. like, aside from the fact I just outright disagree with your comparison, the underlying logic seems to be: "Obama is bad because he is like hitler", rather than criticizing the things you mentioned as being abuses in their own right. idk, I just feel you lose an important level of nuance this way, and it severely weakens your argument when the facts don't hold
up (ie: Obama has no brownshirts to fear the political power of)
The other thing that gets me about the Obama/Hitler comparison here is that people are still talking about Obama's "rise to power". I can't help but think we have already seen Obama's power peak.
I mean like, the first months of his presidency, he had majorities in both houses (iirc) and essentially a "carte blanche" mandate from an electorate that was electrified by him. He is currently facing an election where he is running neck and neck against a politician who is not even liked by his own party and faces constant criticism from progressives and even those within the Democratic party.
Sure, something might change in the next term, if he wins the election, but I'd take some additional convincing to believe Obama's power is still in its ascendancy.
Don't think so, as the drone killings are not done specifically because of his attempt to win the election. For sure, he's definitely benefiting from the assassinations by turning to us and saying "look at me, guys, I'm tough on the terrorists, despite what the Republicans say!, but even if he wasn't running for reelection he'd probably still being persecuting this war.
A more modern example of someone "consolidating his power in America" would be Bush, assuming you believed certain conspiracies. If you were to believe that Bush knew that the WTC bombing was going to happen, but he let it happen because he wanted to start a war and scare the people into voting for him, then that would be an example of consolidating power.
It remains to be seen with the drones. If Obama cancels all drone operations and pulls troops out of the ME as soon as the wins reelection, then I think that that would indicate that his actions are purely politically motivated.
And, on an aside, inB4 Shadow Z gets butthurt about "multiple people screaming at him".
Originally posted by inimalist
In a way that makes it comparable to the Night of the Long Knives?no
My question was rhetorical and the answer was, "yes". Adding more information to the content of my question and then answering that new question does not actually answer my question.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Don't think so, as the drone killings are not done specifically because of his attempt to win the election.
Actually, I think they directly were. And they are being used by the Obama Campaign (or they were...I think he backed off when people started whining about it not being "his efforts"😉.