[TheRealThing]

Affordable Care act and socialism, which this bill really isn't but it sounds good to conservatives, are sin?
Republicans don't have "special interest groups" that they cater to?

You went to college and you didn't pick up on the fact that socialism was an abject failure in the Soviet Union and now is oppressing the people of Red China? Socialism preyed on and victimized the people of the Soviet Union and was directly responsible for their fall. Homogenizing the social structure of any society has the effect of nuetralizing the desire to succeed. I remember the stories on the nightly news showing empty shelves in soviet markets. Reagan rightly referred to the USSR as an "evil empire." I hope you're happy with the ER level health care you, and your family will be receiving as the direct result of the Affordable Care Act. But, getting to the point as to why free health care isn't a good thing. Man is supposed to work for his living, Genesis 3:19 (KJV)
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

It isn't that the basic notion of helping someone is bad, but the guarantee of cradle to grave entitlements is a fundamentally destructive policy. Eventually the welfare rolls will swell to the bursting point and, as in the case of our country, you'll be staring at a 20 trillion dollar national debt by the end of an Obama second term. So why do I say it's sin? We'll never be able to pay our debt as it is, much less the debt with the UNafordable Care Act added in. According to Wikipedia, our monetary base "consists of coins, paper money (both as bank vault cash and as currency circulating in the public), and commercial banks' reserves with the central bank." Currently the U.S. monetary base is sitting at somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars. So if you went out and gathered all of that money up it would only make a small dent in our national debt. But afterwards, there would be no currency for anyone to use. These facts are indisputable, so what's the plan, we just stiff all our creditors some day?

As to whether or not republicans "cater" to anyone, you tell me. Who are the special interest groups the republicans are flooding with benefits and money in return for votes?

[Beetle01]

Everyone isn't required to have auto-insurance...
only people that drive.

There are a lot of benefits to this...
but the fact that everyone has to have it is ridiculous.

Having to buy insurance to drive is one thing.
Having to buy insurance because you are alive is completely different.

See Response to bob Seger Below.

How do you feel about your job being phased out?

My job is not even close to being phased out. I don't understand that comment.

:zzz:Not even in the same thought realm Beetle. That is a very very poor comparison. I think all of us had no doubt whatsoever that you would be the square peg in the world of round holes on the subject. You always are....lol.... Auto insurance protects and compensates others for our own neglect. You are only required by law to carry liability coverage. In case you dont understand the process, that is solely for the benefit of the other guy.:eyeroll:

As much as your try to make snide and smart ass comments, you completely made my point for me. Let me thank you for that. I would figure since you know how Auto Insurance works, you would understand how this whole health insurance plan would work. See Auto Insurance is for the guy you hit, and that is why it is required. No one cares if you insure your own car, but if you are texting and driving and hit my car, it's not going to cost me a bunch of money. This health insurance plan works in a similar way. If you don't have health insurance currently and you get sick or injured, guess who is on the hook for it? Other people/tax payers/insured people. See the hospitals jack up their prices on the insured to help cover their losses on the uninsured. And since getting sick and injured is a FACT of life, wouldn't it be wiser to put some money down for some insurance plans for these people, rather than spend even more on them for when they do get sick? Not only that, they will get preventative treatment before their ailment reaches a critical status, thus costing 1/1000 of what it would.

You went to college and you didn't pick up on the fact that socialism was an abject failure in the Soviet Union and now is oppressing the people of Red China? Socialism preyed on and victimized the people of the Soviet Union and was directly responsible for their fall. Homogenizing the social structure of any society has the effect of nuetralizing the desire to succeed. I remember the stories on the nightly news showing empty shelves in soviet markets. Reagan rightly referred to the USSR as an "evil empire." I hope you're happy with the ER level health care you, and your family will be receiving as the direct result of the Affordable Care Act. But, getting to the point as to why free health care isn't a good thing. Man is supposed to work for his living, Genesis 3:19 (KJV)
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

It isn't that the basic notion of helping someone is bad, but the guarantee of cradle to grave entitlements is a fundamentally destructive policy. Eventually the welfare rolls will swell to the bursting point and, as in the case of our country, you'll be staring at a 20 trillion dollar national debt by the end of an Obama second term. So why do I say it's sin? We'll never be able to pay our debt as it is, much less the debt with the UNafordable Care Act added in. According to Wikipedia, our monetary base "consists of coins, paper money (both as bank vault cash and as currency circulating in the public), and commercial banks' reserves with the central bank." Currently the U.S. monetary base is sitting at somewhere around 2.7 trillion dollars. So if you went out and gathered all of that money up it would only make a small dent in our national debt. But afterwards, there would be no currency for anyone to use. These facts are indisputable, so what's the plan, we just stiff all our creditors some day?

As to whether or not republicans "cater" to anyone, you tell me. Who are the special interest groups the republicans are flooding with benefits and money in return for votes?

The ER level care will improve. Right now the biggest problem with the ER is it is the only way for many people to get medical care. They are unable to go for an office visit due to lack of insurance, so they go to the ER.
This causes a massive influx in ER patients.

Also, people have been referring to this as socialism, and that we won't get to choose our Doctors, and waits will be forever. That is all just BS being repeated from some media source. That in now way will be the case. There will still be the same amount of sick people.

I keep seeing on this site, people referring to Communism, and the fact that we have a free market capitalist system.

I don't know what world you all are living, in but I would call our current system anything but free market capitalism.

When you think communism, socialism, or w/e name you give it, what do you think of? Basically all your decisions are made for you.
Is this not the world we live in now?
Who do you get your power from? How many options? Telephone? Internet? Insurance? Bank with? Buy fuel from? You may think you have a lot of options, but trust me you don't. Many of those companies with different names, are truly owned by one big parent company.

I used to have a good site saved that had bar graphs and charts showing the major industries, Insurance/Banking/Oil/Pharm/Auto. How 20-30 years ago, in some of those industries their were hundreds of private entities vying for your business. Now in most there is only 4 or 5. They also work together to keep other competitors from coming up. The only way free market capitalism works is to truly let it be free, right now those are monopolies.

They pad the pockets of politicians to pass legislature that will help keep them on top, and prevent any new competition. They use the Govt as their own enforcer. Not including all the other dirty tactics.

Anheuser-Bush is a great example. It really shows how a billion dollar company can wield their power over politicians to help dominate any new competition. It's not about the better product/service/ or cost. Its about making sure you are the only option to the consumer (this applies to all the industries).

Anyways, Beer Wars, watch it on Netflix if you got it. Ill give a quick run down. Basically, lets say all of us decide to get together and make some new beer. We create a new company, make a great product at an affordable price, and it really starts catching on. We start turning a solid profit, plus we all get some free beer. Anyways, the way the laws are set up we are forced to sell our beer to a distributor, who then sells it to the stores/bars or w/e. We are not allowed to sell directly to the public.

After a year or so, our beer has really caught on. Demand is going up, we are doing all we can to make as much beer as fast as possible. We have hit about 10-15% of the local market share of beer sales. A fairly substantial amount.

Well, AB has seen a drop in sales in our region, and has sent some people down to find out what is going on. They hear about this new beer, and decide to offer us a deal to buy us out. Of course, we say no, and continue making our beer.

Well, a few weeks later we got a batch ready to head out to the local distributor. We call them up, and they tell us they can't pick up our beer, they will no longer serve us. We call a couple others, they all say the same thing. So now we have a product that we can not sell. We have no way of offering it to the public.

How did this happen? Well, after our refusal, AB decided to call the local distributors, and there usually aren't many for a very large region. They informed the distributors that if they continued to carry their beer, AB would take their business to a competitor, or help someone start a new distributor. Well if you own the distribution company, and AB is about 80% of your business, then you better believe you don't have a choice in the matter.


And that is how our country now works. Its all about the companies and corporations. It's not about us. The new bill, while obviously not close to perfect, is at least about helping the people. Insurance companies are going to see their profits shrink. However, you know, at what point is enough profit enough? Im all for them making money, good for them. When it starts affecting the level and quality of health care we as humans receive. Then, I don't care if we put some limitations on them.

Sure, they can quit selling health insurance if they choose. However, in this country, if there is a profit to be made, someone is gonna make it. Im sure there are plenty of people out there who will be willing to run a company that only profits 500mil-1bil, rather than 4bil a year or more.

[Bob Seger]

See Response to bob Seger Below.



My job is not even close to being phased out. I don't understand that comment.



As much as your try to make snide and smart ass comments, you completely made my point for me. Let me thank you for that. I would figure since you know how Auto Insurance works, you would understand how this whole health insurance plan would work. See Auto Insurance is for the guy you hit, and that is why it is required. No one cares if you insure your own car, but if you are texting and driving and hit my car, it's not going to cost me a bunch of money. This health insurance plan works in a similar way. If you don't have health insurance currently and you get sick or injured, guess who is on the hook for it? Other people/tax payers/insured people. See the hospitals jack up their prices on the insured to help cover their losses on the uninsured. And since getting sick and injured is a FACT of life, wouldn't it be wiser to put some money down for some insurance plans for these people, rather than spend even more on them for when they do get sick? Not only that, they will get preventative treatment before their ailment reaches a critical status, thus costing 1/1000 of what it would.




The ER level care will improve. Right now the biggest problem with the ER is it is the only way for many people to get medical care. They are unable to go for an office visit due to lack of insurance, so they go to the ER.
This causes a massive influx in ER patients.

Also, people have been referring to this as socialism, and that we won't get to choose our Doctors, and waits will be forever. That is all just BS being repeated from some media source. That in now way will be the case. There will still be the same amount of sick people.

I keep seeing on this site, people referring to Communism, and the fact that we have a free market capitalist system.

I don't know what world you all are living, in but I would call our current system anything but free market capitalism.

When you think communism, socialism, or w/e name you give it, what do you think of? Basically all your decisions are made for you.
Is this not the world we live in now?
Who do you get your power from? How many options? Telephone? Internet? Insurance? Bank with? Buy fuel from? You may think you have a lot of options, but trust me you don't. Many of those companies with different names, are truly owned by one big parent company.

I used to have a good site saved that had bar graphs and charts showing the major industries, Insurance/Banking/Oil/Pharm/Auto. How 20-30 years ago, in some of those industries their were hundreds of private entities vying for your business. Now in most there is only 4 or 5. They also work together to keep other competitors from coming up. The only way free market capitalism works is to truly let it be free, right now those are monopolies.

They pad the pockets of politicians to pass legislature that will help keep them on top, and prevent any new competition. They use the Govt as their own enforcer. Not including all the other dirty tactics.

Anheuser-Bush is a great example. It really shows how a billion dollar company can wield their power over politicians to help dominate any new competition. It's not about the better product/service/ or cost. Its about making sure you are the only option to the consumer (this applies to all the industries).

Anyways, Beer Wars, watch it on Netflix if you got it. Ill give a quick run down. Basically, lets say all of us decide to get together and make some new beer. We create a new company, make a great product at an affordable price, and it really starts catching on. We start turning a solid profit, plus we all get some free beer. Anyways, the way the laws are set up we are forced to sell our beer to a distributor, who then sells it to the stores/bars or w/e. We are not allowed to sell directly to the public.

After a year or so, our beer has really caught on. Demand is going up, we are doing all we can to make as much beer as fast as possible. We have hit about 10-15% of the local market share of beer sales. A fairly substantial amount.

Well, AB has seen a drop in sales in our region, and has sent some people down to find out what is going on. They hear about this new beer, and decide to offer us a deal to buy us out. Of course, we say no, and continue making our beer.

Well, a few weeks later we got a batch ready to head out to the local distributor. We call them up, and they tell us they can't pick up our beer, they will no longer serve us. We call a couple others, they all say the same thing. So now we have a product that we can not sell. We have no way of offering it to the public.

How did this happen? Well, after our refusal, AB decided to call the local distributors, and there usually aren't many for a very large region. They informed the distributors that if they continued to carry their beer, AB would take their business to a competitor, or help someone start a new distributor. Well if you own the distribution company, and AB is about 80% of your business, then you better believe you don't have a choice in the matter.


And that is how our country now works. Its all about the companies and corporations. It's not about us. The new bill, while obviously not close to perfect, is at least about helping the people. Insurance companies are going to see their profits shrink. However, you know, at what point is enough profit enough? Im all for them making money, good for them. When it starts affecting the level and quality of health care we as humans receive. Then, I don't care if we put some limitations on them.

Sure, they can quit selling health insurance if they choose. However, in this country, if there is a profit to be made, someone is gonna make it. Im sure there are plenty of people out there who will be willing to run a company that only profits 500mil-1bil, rather than 4bil a year or more.

Beetle Beetle Beetle. This is all I needed to make a response. I , and I am sure everyone else does even need to read the rest of your post. It is common knowledge that you are one of the most wacko, waaaay out there posters on this board. CONSISTANTLY, on EVERY SUBJECT. Too much going on today to waste much time responding to your gooblelty goop.


Thank you sir, for confirming my comment as well. It couldn't have been done any better. You and that rich lady Nancy Pelosi, definatly live in your own little world.:Thumbs:

[Memo Luna]

Justice Roberts has a life record, in the legal profession and in his personal life, which indicates that he believes in a strict (conservative) interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. What it says is what it means.

So why would he desert his core beliefs and go with the liberals to make a 5-4 majority? Many pundits have suggested that he was intimidated by the White House and its minions in the administration and the media. It is true that a lot of pressure was placed upon Roberts with treats of an out and out war on the Court if the ruling were 5-4 along philosophical lines. Obama, America's most overrated law school lecturer (not a professor by a long shot), left no doubt of what would happen if his side lost. All his "underlings" joined the chorus in this unprecedented pre-decision savaging of the Court.

They blatently informed Roberts that they would make sure the Court suffered damage as an institution and they would see to it that the "Roberts Court" would be damaged for all of history.

So, was Roberts sufficiently intimidated that he choked and gave in? We'll never know. However, I think it is quite reasonable to so conclude since no other answer seems valid.

The irony of it is that, by doing so, Roberts showed that the Court in general and the CJ in particular are not independent but are subject to public pressure. That my friends, damages the Court far more than could have possibly result from Roberts voting his conscience and killing the mandate by a 5-4 vote (as was expected).

Roberts, in bowing to pressure, did the Court more harm than he now realizes. In the end, he will understand what he did but the damage to the Court cannot be undone.

Shame on Roberts. He singlehandedly trampled upon the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court is forever tarnished.

[Truth]

I believe Memo Luna is right on target. Roberts sealed his legacy and it isn't positive. If he was coerced, which I firmly believe, he has harmed the Supreme Court forever.

[TheRealThing]

See Response to bob Seger Below.



My job is not even close to being phased out. I don't understand that comment.



As much as your try to make snide and smart ass comments, you completely made my point for me. Let me thank you for that. I would figure since you know how Auto Insurance works, you would understand how this whole health insurance plan would work. See Auto Insurance is for the guy you hit, and that is why it is required. No one cares if you insure your own car, but if you are texting and driving and hit my car, it's not going to cost me a bunch of money. This health insurance plan works in a similar way. If you don't have health insurance currently and you get sick or injured, guess who is on the hook for it? Other people/tax payers/insured people. See the hospitals jack up their prices on the insured to help cover their losses on the uninsured. And since getting sick and injured is a FACT of life, wouldn't it be wiser to put some money down for some insurance plans for these people, rather than spend even more on them for when they do get sick? Not only that, they will get preventative treatment before their ailment reaches a critical status, thus costing 1/1000 of what it would.




The ER level care will improve. Right now the biggest problem with the ER is it is the only way for many people to get medical care. They are unable to go for an office visit due to lack of insurance, so they go to the ER.
This causes a massive influx in ER patients.

Also, people have been referring to this as socialism, and that we won't get to choose our Doctors, and waits will be forever. That is all just BS being repeated from some media source. That in now way will be the case. There will still be the same amount of sick people.

I keep seeing on this site, people referring to Communism, and the fact that we have a free market capitalist system.

I don't know what world you all are living, in but I would call our current system anything but free market capitalism.

When you think communism, socialism, or w/e name you give it, what do you think of? Basically all your decisions are made for you.
Is this not the world we live in now?
Who do you get your power from? How many options? Telephone? Internet? Insurance? Bank with? Buy fuel from? You may think you have a lot of options, but trust me you don't. Many of those companies with different names, are truly owned by one big parent company.

I used to have a good site saved that had bar graphs and charts showing the major industries, Insurance/Banking/Oil/Pharm/Auto. How 20-30 years ago, in some of those industries their were hundreds of private entities vying for your business. Now in most there is only 4 or 5. They also work together to keep other competitors from coming up. The only way free market capitalism works is to truly let it be free, right now those are monopolies.

They pad the pockets of politicians to pass legislature that will help keep them on top, and prevent any new competition. They use the Govt as their own enforcer. Not including all the other dirty tactics.

Anheuser-Bush is a great example. It really shows how a billion dollar company can wield their power over politicians to help dominate any new competition. It's not about the better product/service/ or cost. Its about making sure you are the only option to the consumer (this applies to all the industries).

Anyways, Beer Wars, watch it on Netflix if you got it. Ill give a quick run down. Basically, lets say all of us decide to get together and make some new beer. We create a new company, make a great product at an affordable price, and it really starts catching on. We start turning a solid profit, plus we all get some free beer. Anyways, the way the laws are set up we are forced to sell our beer to a distributor, who then sells it to the stores/bars or w/e. We are not allowed to sell directly to the public.

After a year or so, our beer has really caught on. Demand is going up, we are doing all we can to make as much beer as fast as possible. We have hit about 10-15% of the local market share of beer sales. A fairly substantial amount.

Well, AB has seen a drop in sales in our region, and has sent some people down to find out what is going on. They hear about this new beer, and decide to offer us a deal to buy us out. Of course, we say no, and continue making our beer.

Well, a few weeks later we got a batch ready to head out to the local distributor. We call them up, and they tell us they can't pick up our beer, they will no longer serve us. We call a couple others, they all say the same thing. So now we have a product that we can not sell. We have no way of offering it to the public.

How did this happen? Well, after our refusal, AB decided to call the local distributors, and there usually aren't many for a very large region. They informed the distributors that if they continued to carry their beer, AB would take their business to a competitor, or help someone start a new distributor. Well if you own the distribution company, and AB is about 80% of your business, then you better believe you don't have a choice in the matter.


And that is how our country now works. Its all about the companies and corporations. It's not about us. The new bill, while obviously not close to perfect, is at least about helping the people. Insurance companies are going to see their profits shrink. However, you know, at what point is enough profit enough? Im all for them making money, good for them. When it starts affecting the level and quality of health care we as humans receive. Then, I don't care if we put some limitations on them.

Sure, they can quit selling health insurance if they choose. However, in this country, if there is a profit to be made, someone is gonna make it. Im sure there are plenty of people out there who will be willing to run a company that only profits 500mil-1bil, rather than 4bil a year or more.

Thanks for the clarification Captain Obvious. If that's a problem now how bad would you suppose it will be when EVERYBODY is regulated onto the same playing field. The entire populace, save the rich, will go to cattlecall for medical services. Potluck will be the operative of the new medical era. You'll have no say of which doctor you see, when, or where. All of your options will be gone. You'll go to a clinic somewhere and you'll take what you get. We're looking at a two tier medical system, the ER level care that I have suggested will be the case, and the elite care the rich will enjoy.

[Bob Seger]

See Response to bob Seger Below.



My job is not even close to being phased out. I don't understand that comment.



As much as your try to make snide and smart ass comments, you completely made my point for me. Let me thank you for that. I would figure since you know how Auto Insurance works, you would understand how this whole health insurance plan would work. See Auto Insurance is for the guy you hit, and that is why it is required. No one cares if you insure your own car, but if you are texting and driving and hit my car, it's not going to cost me a bunch of money. This health insurance plan works in a similar way. If you don't have health insurance currently and you get sick or injured, guess who is on the hook for it? Other people/tax payers/insured people. See the hospitals jack up their prices on the insured to help cover their losses on the uninsured. And since getting sick and injured is a FACT of life, wouldn't it be wiser to put some money down for some insurance plans for these people, rather than spend even more on them for when they do get sick? Not only that, they will get preventative treatment before their ailment reaches a critical status, thus costing 1/1000 of what it would.




The ER level care will improve. Right now the biggest problem with the ER is it is the only way for many people to get medical care. They are unable to go for an office visit due to lack of insurance, so they go to the ER.
This causes a massive influx in ER patients.

Also, people have been referring to this as socialism, and that we won't get to choose our Doctors, and waits will be forever. That is all just BS being repeated from some media source. That in now way will be the case. There will still be the same amount of sick people.

I keep seeing on this site, people referring to Communism, and the fact that we have a free market capitalist system.

I don't know what world you all are living, in but I would call our current system anything but free market capitalism.

When you think communism, socialism, or w/e name you give it, what do you think of? Basically all your decisions are made for you.
Is this not the world we live in now?
Who do you get your power from? How many options? Telephone? Internet? Insurance? Bank with? Buy fuel from? You may think you have a lot of options, but trust me you don't. Many of those companies with different names, are truly owned by one big parent company.

I used to have a good site saved that had bar graphs and charts showing the major industries, Insurance/Banking/Oil/Pharm/Auto. How 20-30 years ago, in some of those industries their were hundreds of private entities vying for your business. Now in most there is only 4 or 5. They also work together to keep other competitors from coming up. The only way free market capitalism works is to truly let it be free, right now those are monopolies.

They pad the pockets of politicians to pass legislature that will help keep them on top, and prevent any new competition. They use the Govt as their own enforcer. Not including all the other dirty tactics.

Anheuser-Bush is a great example. It really shows how a billion dollar company can wield their power over politicians to help dominate any new competition. It's not about the better product/service/ or cost. Its about making sure you are the only option to the consumer (this applies to all the industries).

Anyways, Beer Wars, watch it on Netflix if you got it. Ill give a quick run down. Basically, lets say all of us decide to get together and make some new beer. We create a new company, make a great product at an affordable price, and it really starts catching on. We start turning a solid profit, plus we all get some free beer. Anyways, the way the laws are set up we are forced to sell our beer to a distributor, who then sells it to the stores/bars or w/e. We are not allowed to sell directly to the public.

After a year or so, our beer has really caught on. Demand is going up, we are doing all we can to make as much beer as fast as possible. We have hit about 10-15% of the local market share of beer sales. A fairly substantial amount.

Well, AB has seen a drop in sales in our region, and has sent some people down to find out what is going on. They hear about this new beer, and decide to offer us a deal to buy us out. Of course, we say no, and continue making our beer.

Well, a few weeks later we got a batch ready to head out to the local distributor. We call them up, and they tell us they can't pick up our beer, they will no longer serve us. We call a couple others, they all say the same thing. So now we have a product that we can not sell. We have no way of offering it to the public.How did this happen? Well, after our refusal, AB decided to call the local distributors, and there usually aren't many for a very large region. They informed the distributors that if they continued to carry their beer, AB would take their business to a competitor, or help someone start a new distributor. Well if you own the distribution company, and AB is about 80% of your business, then you better believe you don't have a choice in the matter.And that is how our country now works. Its all about the companies and corporations. It's not about us. The new bill, while obviously not close to perfect, is at least about helping the people. Insurance companies are going to see their profits shrink. However, you know, at what point is enough profit enough? Im all for them making money, good for them. When it starts affecting the level and quality of health care we as humans receive. Then, I don't care if we put some limitations on them.

Sure, they can quit selling health insurance if they choose. However, in this country, if there is a profit to be made, someone is gonna make it. Im sure there are plenty of people out there who will be willing to run a company that only profits 500mil-1bil, rather than 4bil a year or more.

That's all a cute little story Beetle, but one in which you obviously dont have a clue as to what you are talking about. If you have a Budweiser distributorship you have what is called a "CONTRACT" with Anheiser Bush. In that contract, it will state that you cannot carry a competetive brand while they have given you exclusive distribution rights to carry the products they either manufacture or have a vested interest in, or you have another prearraged agreement allowing you to distribute another approved product. There is no dark area. No ifs, ands, or butts. They have given you what is called a "franchise" for a specific geographical territory.


I always find it amusing that there are so many EXPERTS on business on here that realisticly would probably have difficulty in managing a newspaper route. But according to them they know everything about it. You might have bluffed a few on here into believing you know what you're talking about, but you'll not get me on that one..

[the other guy]

Here's how it works in the real world. I suffered heart failure in febuary. My doctor wanted to put in a implantable heart devise (something like a pacemaker). However, government regulations wil not allow for this untill a ninety day waiting period. My doctor's statement when I asked him when he would put in this devise (tomorrow if they wouldn't put me in jail). Well the ninety days are over and I have my device. Just a couple of problems. 1. I had to wear a lifevest for those ninety days cost $3200.00 a month. 2. My anthem policy which I pay $783.79 a month for won't pay for it. 3. They have already paid for the real one. Since I am only 57 years old I will not receive Medicare for two years from my disability. I can only carry my cobra ins. For 18 months. So even if I had the money I could not keep insurance untill Medicare kicks in.

So far government regulations have given me a $10,000.00 bill I can't pay and could have cost me my life (since about 1/3 of the people with my condition die within the first ninety days)

So I guess all these guys who are all happy about government healthcare don't plan on suffering heart failure or anything else for that matter.

As far as the healthcare plan now, I see only the working people suffering in any way. I read that the I.R.S. will collect the fine (I mean tax) by keeping tax returns and other ways of withholdings. So the bums who don't work won't have to pay.

As for me, my wife will not have any insurance once my cobra runs out so my guess is the government will take it out of my social security benefits.

This is reality not some made up story.

So really what has changed the working guy in getting screwed again.

[Bob Seger]

Here's how it works in the real world. I suffered heart failure in febuary. My doctor wanted to put in a implantable heart devise (something like a pacemaker). However, government regulations wil not allow for this untill a ninety day waiting period. My doctor's statement when I asked him when he would put in this devise (tomorrow if they wouldn't put me in jail). Well the ninety days are over and I have my device. Just a couple of problems. 1. I had to wear a lifevest for those ninety days cost $3200.00 a month. 2. My anthem policy which I pay $783.79 a month for won't pay for it. 3. They have already paid for the real one. Since I am only 57 years old I will not receive Medicare for two years from my disability. I can only carry my cobra ins. For 18 months. So even if I had the money I could not keep insurance untill Medicare kicks in.

So far government regulations have given me a $10,000.00 bill I can't pay and could have cost me my life (since about 1/3 of the people with my condition die within the first ninety days)

So I guess all these guys who are all happy about government healthcare don't plan on suffering heart failure or anything else for that matter.
As far as the healthcare plan now, I see only the working people suffering in any way. I read that the I.R.S. will collect the fine (I mean tax) by keeping tax returns and other ways of withholdings. So the bums who don't work won't have to pay.

As for me, my wife will not have any insurance once my cobra runs out so my guess is the government will take it out of my social security benefits.

This is reality not some made up story.

So really what has changed the working guy in getting screwed again.

Most are like the "beer" guy. They really dont know ding dong about what they are talking about to begin with.

[TheRealThing]

Here's how it works in the real world. I suffered heart failure in febuary. My doctor wanted to put in a implantable heart devise (something like a pacemaker). However, government regulations wil not allow for this untill a ninety day waiting period. My doctor's statement when I asked him when he would put in this devise (tomorrow if they wouldn't put me in jail). Well the ninety days are over and I have my device. Just a couple of problems. 1. I had to wear a lifevest for those ninety days cost $3200.00 a month. 2. My anthem policy which I pay $783.79 a month for won't pay for it. 3. They have already paid for the real one. Since I am only 57 years old I will not receive Medicare for two years from my disability. I can only carry my cobra ins. For 18 months. So even if I had the money I could not keep insurance untill Medicare kicks in.

So far government regulations have given me a $10,000.00 bill I can't pay and could have cost me my life (since about 1/3 of the people with my condition die within the first ninety days)

So I guess all these guys who are all happy about government healthcare don't plan on suffering heart failure or anything else for that matter.

As far as the healthcare plan now, I see only the working people suffering in any way. I read that the I.R.S. will collect the fine (I mean tax) by keeping tax returns and other ways of withholdings. So the bums who don't work won't have to pay.

As for me, my wife will not have any insurance once my cobra runs out so my guess is the government will take it out of my social security benefits.

This is reality not some made up story.

So really what has changed the working guy in getting screwed again.

What we have here is the horror of reality versus the imaginary fancies of the liberal in la-la land. The secular humanistic "dream" as laid out by John Lennon in his song "Imagine", really does sum them up.

All this Affordable Care Act does is move those who don't or won't work to the head of the line. And, the best example of how that will work is demonstrated by the way college educations are funded. If one has worked his whole life, he will pay for much of his children's education. On the other hand, your children will recieve a free education, if you have not worked a tap during your lifetime. That is how it's done at present in this country.

Those who contribute nothing to society, the so-called poor, have become the honored and revered darlings of the left. They must have this class of folks to give themselves meaning. I mean, how can they feel god-like if they aren't taking care of the unfortunates? The idea here is consistent with the social justice based tenet known as redistribution of wealth. Before it's all over and if Obama is reelected to a second term, most of the seperation between those who have worked to get ahead will dissolve and they will find themselves amid the masses of a homogenized lower social tier. The rich will live in the stratosphere, and then you'll have a vast group of folks who will live in a socialistic, governmentally leveled and regulated sort of-- sameness. Of course, the ultimate irony here, is that Obama is continually touting the well being of the middle class when his real agenda is eradication of the middle class. IMO

Other Guy, I hope for the best for you and your family in this situation. Let's get to the polls this fall and vote these 'dreamers' out.

[Beetle01]

That's all a cute little story Beetle, but one in which you obviously dont have a clue as to what you are talking about. If you have a Budweiser distributorship you have what is called a "CONTRACT" with Anheiser Bush. In that contract, it will state that you cannot carry a competetive brand while they have given you exclusive distribution rights to carry the products they either manufacture or have a vested interest in, or you have another prearraged agreement allowing you to distribute another approved product. There is no dark area. No ifs, ands, or butts. They have given you what is called a "franchise" for a specific geographical territory.


I always find it amusing that there are so many EXPERTS on business on here that realisticly would probably have difficulty in managing a newspaper route. But according to them they know everything about it. You might have bluffed a few on here into believing you know what you're talking about, but you'll not get me on that one..

You missed the whole point. The point is, that due to the money AB puts in the pockets of politicians. And yes the Beer lobby is a huge lobby in DC believe it or not. These politicians make sure laws and regulations are in place to ensure AB maintain a monopoly on the market. If AB wants to pick a distributor, that is fine, and that would be no big deal, but there are very few distributors per region. AB has ensured this.

Choices are robbed from the population. It spits right in the face of free markets. There is no way for a new beer company to distribute their beer due to govt. regulations put in place by politicians who were paid off.

If you don't see the problem with that, then Im not sure there is much more to discuss with you.

[Beetle01]

Thanks for the clarification Captain Obvious. If that's a problem now how bad would you suppose it will be when EVERYBODY is regulated onto the same playing field. The entire populace, save the rich, will go to cattlecall for medical services. Potluck will be the operative of the new medical era. You'll have no say of which doctor you see, when, or where. All of your options will be gone. You'll go to a clinic somewhere and you'll take what you get. We're looking at a two tier medical system, the ER level care that I have suggested will be the case, and the elite care the rich will enjoy.

I don't think you understand. THESE PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE ALREADY GO TO THE ER. The ER clutter would be much less. There is going to be no cattle call. People will be able to make appointments with their MD's for chronic issues, instead of going to the ER every week or couple of weeks.
90% of the patients I saw were chronic pain or similar issues, that the only thing they could do was come to the ER. In the ER we are forced to do all kinds of tests to assure that it is just something chronic, MD's, NP's, and PA's are not going to risk their license by just writing them some pain meds without making sure that chronic migraine isn't a brain bleed. These patients would be able to follow up with their MD every 3 to 6 months and get RX's and control their issues.

Also, 4 out of 5 people w/o insurance in this country lives in a family where at least one member of the family works full time hours. To act like everyone out there is just some bum who doesn't work is just foolish. That is not the truth. Many of the patients I have seen work full time, and do what they can just to get by. They aren't the smartest or best this country has to offer, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get proper medical care.

The real cost in this country is from illegal immigration. We have to put a stop the them being able to obtain jobs and not deporting them. Illegal immigrants make approx 401 billion under the table untaxed income. Not to mentions the 250billion they cost us expenses for education, jail, healthcare, and so on.

That money would be more than enough to pay for this bill, and start paying off our debt.

California, a state that is in huge financial crisis, would have a 8billion dollar budget surplus if all illegal immigrants left today.


Edit: Wanted to clarify, that i felt like all illegals should be deported when caught.

[Beetle01]

The WSWA is one of the most powerful lobbies in DC. They are the ones that ensure that the three tier system stays in place. They do this by paying off politicians. It's that simple. 90% of our problems can be traced to similar deals and set ups.

[TheRealThing]

I don't think you understand. THESE PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE ALREADY GO TO THE ER. The ER clutter would be much less. There is going to be no cattle call. People will be able to make appointments with their MD's for chronic issues, instead of going to the ER every week or couple of weeks.
90% of the patients I saw were chronic pain or similar issues, that the only thing they could do was come to the ER. In the ER we are forced to do all kinds of tests to assure that it is just something chronic, MD's, NP's, and PA's are not going to risk their license by just writing them some pain meds without making sure that chronic migraine isn't a brain bleed. These patients would be able to follow up with their MD every 3 to 6 months and get RX's and control their issues.

Also, 4 out of 5 people w/o insurance in this country lives in a family where at least one member of the family works full time hours. To act like everyone out there is just some bum who doesn't work is just foolish. That is not the truth. Many of the patients I have seen work full time, and do what they can just to get by. They aren't the smartest or best this country has to offer, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get proper medical care.

The real cost in this country is from illegal immigration. We have to put a stop the them being able to obtain jobs and not deporting them. Illegal immigrants make approx 401 billion under the table untaxed income. Not to mentions the 250billion they cost us expenses for education, jail, healthcare, and so on.

That money would be more than enough to pay for this bill, and start paying off our debt.

California, a state that is in huge financial crisis, would have a 8billion dollar budget surplus if all illegal immigrants left today.


Edit: Wanted to clarify, that i felt like all illegals should be deported when caught.

Nope, you're the one in the dark. The law will elevate those going to the ER for health care to the same, or likely better status, as those with the cadillac care plans have right now, even though the level of overall care given will be much lower. I guess you must have missed the part where a large percentage of the docs in business right now intend to leave the medical profession as the direct result of this massive government invasion into their practice. The way I heard it stated on the news went like this, people will be getting 1950's style health care for 2012 level premiums. I'll tell you something else. The illegal immigrants you are raving about, will be standing right beside YOU in line to get medical attention or more likely in front of YOU. Illegals are going nowhere except to the head of the entitlements line. You really can't tap into the gist here? What do you think the word universal in health care stands for?

You act like it will be a case of bringing the so-called poor up to the cadillac status of the better health insurance policies when in fact it is a social reckoning. That is the outcome social justice necessarily dictates. Taking away the priviledge of the fortunate among the middle class is one of the mandates of social justice. Therefore, they will find their status lowered to whatever the base level bottoms out to. Heck, for all we know, ER style care may look far superior to the actual level of care folks recieve with the inception of ObamaCare. As to your assertion, while pointing out the obvious fact that the ER crowd doesn't pay for or have health insurance, don't forget, most of the 30 million people the left wanted to add to the medicare rolls STILL were not expected to pay for their insurance. So, the ones that already pay for their own health insurance, under the ACA will pay a much steeper premium for their insurance and some (at least 30 million to start) will pay little or nothing. Reality is like the account "the other guy" just gave us. The promises of ObamaCare will dissolve away into that reality. He already showed his hand on the campaign trail during his run up to the white house when he said, "Americans use 67% of the world's energy, it isn't right, and we cannot continue our energy usage at that level" Folks aren't able to see that their freedoms and privilege are erroding away. It's incredible.

[Bob Seger]

You missed the whole point. The point is, that due to the money AB puts in the pockets of politicians. And yes the Beer lobby is a huge lobby in DC believe it or not. These politicians make sure laws and regulations are in place to ensure AB maintain a monopoly on the market. If AB wants to pick a distributor, that is fine, and that would be no big deal, but there are very few distributors per region. AB has ensured this.

Choices are robbed from the population. It spits right in the face of free markets. There is no way for a new beer company to distribute their beer due to govt. regulations put in place by politicians who were paid off.

If you don't see the problem with that, then Im not sure there is much more to discuss with you.

No, I am not missing any point. What you are going on about has absolutely nothing to do with the government or lobbiests.

If you distribute this product you are given a certain geographical area when you are granted a franchise and that is considered your territory to service. There will in turn be another distributor that will service another geographic area that will butt-up to the other distributor's area. The geographic area will be defined by whatever territory the brewer deems necessesary to maintain consistant coverage of their products nationwide and to assure that national chains receive consistant service levels and pricing.

The point is, you are trying to imply that the government intervenes, due to big money contributors that will restrict and pressure the little guy from being able to sell their products to a designated AB distributor, by AB lobbiests lining the pockets of polititians. That is false..... false..... false. There is not one word of truth to that. As I mentioned before, AB requires their distributors to sell their products EXCLUSIVELY, unless their is another approved product that they will grant the distributor to sell. I assure you that another competitors product will not be one of those approved products. Once more, this is a binding CONTRACT aggreed to by both the distributor and the bottler. Violation of the contact will more than likely result in the voidment of the franchise. The government plays exactly ZERO into it. There are absoluely ZERO regulations that the government imposes on any of this.

See how long a McDonald's franchisee will retain his franchise if he is caught selling Wendy's french fries on the side. McDonalds will pull it in a heartbeat. It's no different than the beer story. If an AB distributor violates the terms of the contract they with AB, then they're history, that is as far s being able to distribute AB products.

Your fabrication of this whole scenerio is ridiculous. Does AB have the resources to drive an upstart out of business? Yes indeed they do, and will do it in a heartbeat if their market domination is deemed threatened. You obviously dont have a clue as to what slotting fees and shelf space fees are all about, do you?. That is something that is negotiated between the brewer/distributor and the retailer and has nothing to do with any kind of government regulations.. Sometimes the result of slotting/shelf space agreements will leave someone's product being pushed to the wayside. That is a whole nother story that can be discussed more in detail if you wish, but what you are describing is a fictional made up story, and try as you may to buffalo us, you have no clue of any thing about..

There is not much more to discuss with me on this subject because you dont have the first inkling of what you are talking about to begin with. As I mentioned earlier you are always the square peg trying to fit into the masses of round holes on just about everything you jibber jabber on about.

[the other guy]

The point is I was denied needed care for ninety days. The guy who pays the band gets to pick the songs. Uncle Sam in charge of payments uncle Sam will decide the treatment. And by the way the dept of health is studying death certificates to see if the policy needs changed in cases like mine. So if enough of us die they may change the rules.

[Beetle01]

No, I am not missing any point. What you are going on about has absolutely nothing to do with the government or lobbiests.

If you distribute this product you are given a certain geographical area when you are granted a franchise and that is considered your territory to service. There will in turn be another distributor that will service another geographic area that will butt-up to the other distributor's area. The geographic area will be defined by whatever territory the brewer deems necessesary to maintain consistant coverage of their products nationwide and to assure that national chains receive consistant service levels and pricing.

The point is, you are trying to imply that the government intervenes, due to big money contributors that will restrict and pressure the little guy from being able to sell their products to a designated AB distributor, by AB lobbiests lining the pockets of polititians. That is false..... false..... false. There is not one word of truth to that. As I mentioned before, AB requires their distributors to sell their products EXCLUSIVELY, unless their is another approved product that they will grant the distributor to sell. I assure you that another competitors product will not be one of those approved products. Once more, this is a binding CONTRACT aggreed to by both the distributor and the bottler. Violation of the contact will more than likely result in the voidment of the franchise. The government plays exactly ZERO into it. There are absoluely ZERO regulations that the government imposes on any of this.

See how long a McDonald's franchisee will retain his franchise if he is caught selling Wendy's french fries on the side. McDonalds will pull it in a heartbeat. It's no different than the beer story. If an AB distributor violates the terms of the contract they with AB, then they're history, that is as far s being able to distribute AB products.

Your fabrication of this whole scenerio is ridiculous. Does AB have the resources to drive an upstart out of business? Yes indeed they do, and will do it in a heartbeat if their market domination is deemed threatened. You obviously dont have a clue as to what slotting fees and shelf space fees are all about, do you?. That is something that is negotiated between the brewer/distributor and the retailer and has nothing to do with any kind of government regulations.. Sometimes the result of slotting/shelf space agreements will leave someone's product being pushed to the wayside. That is a whole nother story that can be discussed more in detail if you wish, but what you are describing is a fictional made up story, and try as you may to buffalo us, you have no clue of any thing about..

There is not much more to discuss with me on this subject because you dont have the first inkling of what you are talking about to begin with. As I mentioned earlier you are always the square peg trying to fit into the masses of round holes on just about everything you jibber jabber on about.

What are you talking about franchise distributors? Or those that are granted certain regions? How does that even sound like capitalism at all?

IT IS GOVT. REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE THERE TO BE DISTRIBUTORS. It is called the three tiered system. WSWA is the lobby that has been fighting in DC to keep that system in place. That lobby represents the current big boys in alcohol sales.

The three tiered LAW, requires alcohol makers sell their product to a wholesale distributor, who then sells it to the retail stores, who then sell it to the customer. This also increases the cost to the customer by 25%.

This is a ridiculous law that was put in when prohibition was done away with. If not for the WSWA lobby this law would have already been revoked. However, they ensure it stays in place by giving money to politicians.

The result is AB has full dominion over the distributors. Not because of some contract. Because no matter what AB has to sell to a distributor. They can do it by threatening to take their business elsewhere. Which is all fine and good, that is AB's right.

However, the point is that the law should not even exist, and only still does because of lobbyists. Alcohol makers should have the right to sell their product to the retail stores. That way the consumer can choose what product he wants from a wide variety. The best product/service for the best price will win the day. That is how our country's economy was intended to work. Not this quasi communist BS we have in place now.

Our choices when it comes to Banking/Insurance/Auto/Fuel/Energy/Food. Those choices are already made for us, we just have this fake idea of freedom in this country.

There are a handful of companies in each sector making all the decisions and policies for those industries. They have the Fed. Govt. in their back pocket, and use them to ensure they maintain their grip.

In the meantime, prices continue to rise, while quality of service continues to decrease.

[nky]

In March CBO released the lastest cost projections of ObamaCare showing that it’s now over $1.76 trillion, nearly double the original estimate

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofi...imates.pdf

75% of the costs of Obamacare will be paid by those making $120,000 or less

Here's a list of new taxes costing you
http://atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996


By the way the CBO numbers are probably low as they always seem to be as a project gets rolled out

[Beetle01]

Nope, you're the one in the dark. The law will elevate those going to the ER for health care to the same, or likely better status, as those with the cadillac care plans have right now, even though the level of overall care given will be much lower. I guess you must have missed the part where a large percentage of the docs in business right now intend to leave the medical profession as the direct result of this massive government invasion into their practice. The way I heard it stated on the news went like this, people will be getting 1950's style health care for 2012 level premiums. I'll tell you something else. The illegal immigrants you are raving about, will be standing right beside YOU in line to get medical attention or more likely in front of YOU. Illegals are going nowhere except to the head of the entitlements line. You really can't tap into the gist here? What do you think the word universal in health care stands for?

You act like it will be a case of bringing the so-called poor up to the cadillac status of the better health insurance policies when in fact it is a social reckoning. That is the outcome social justice necessarily dictates. Taking away the priviledge of the fortunate among the middle class is one of the mandates of social justice. Therefore, they will find their status lowered to whatever the base level bottoms out to. Heck, for all we know, ER style care may look far superior to the actual level of care folks recieve with the inception of ObamaCare. As to your assertion, while pointing out the obvious fact that the ER crowd doesn't pay for or have health insurance, don't forget, most of the 30 million people the left wanted to add to the medicare rolls STILL were not expected to pay for their insurance. So, the ones that already pay for their own health insurance, under the ACA will pay a much steeper premium for their insurance and some (at least 30 million to start) will pay little or nothing. Reality is like the account "the other guy" just gave us. The promises of ObamaCare will dissolve away into that reality. He already showed his hand on the campaign trail during his run up to the white house when he said, "Americans use 67% of the world's energy, it isn't right, and we cannot continue our energy usage at that level" Folks aren't able to see that their freedoms and privilege are erroding away. It's incredible.

Im not sure how many MD's you know, but I know dozens, and work with dozens, and we discuss these things. Most seem to like the idea. I can't think of one who said they didn't like it. Although, Im sure there are a few who may not say so. Not one has even mentioned quitting. I don't know where you heard that or what BS news coverage told you that shit. You are a fool if you believe that.

Im not sure why you think there is going to be this massive influx to the Doctor's office. More people are not going to get sick or injured. Sure you may see a small rise in overall visits, as people get checkups and get better preventative care. However, more people are not going to get cancer, heart disease, CHF, traumatic injuries, serious infections, or other critical situations.

If everyone had insurance, the overall cost of the HC at the provider level would decrease rapidly over a matter of a couple of years, if not sooner. That is because when hospitals stop having to pass on the cost of the uninsured over the insured. Treatment costs will drop, and significantly. roughly 30-35% of the cost of your treatment is inflated for this reason. And more in places where there is a denser population of the uninsured.

Premiums are not going to sky rocket. Health Insurance companies will be restricted on price gouging. Therefore they can't offer you a plan for 3 times the cost they gave someone who used a voucher to buy their Insurance.

The only people who are really losing in this bill is the insurance companies, and to that I applaud. Any companies that destroy lives for profit by denying coverage to an eligible person, who then can not receive treatment, are getting what they deserve.

Don't worry they will still make billions a year. Many of these CEO's and board members deserve nothing less than a bullet in their cranium. Im against the death penalty though, so life in prison would have to do.

[Beetle01]

In March CBO released the lastest cost projections of ObamaCare showing that it’s now over $1.76 trillion, nearly double the original estimate

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofi...imates.pdf

75% of the costs of Obamacare will be paid by those making $120,000 or less

Here's a list of new taxes costing you
http://atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996


By the way the CBO numbers are probably low as they always seem to be as a project gets rolled out

We already spend close to 150billion a year on uninsured Americans. That number does not include care for illegals either.

You all are complaining about money that is ALREADY being spent. In the long term this will reduce that cost, because people will be able to receive continuous care and preventative care.

[nky]

We already spend close to 150billion a year on uninsured Americans. That number does not include care for illegals either.

You all are complaining about money that is ALREADY being spent. In the long term this will reduce that cost, because people will be able to receive continuous care and preventative care.

and illegals are still outside this number as are the ones this law doesn't cover.

[nky]

26 million Americans without insurance

[nky]

[Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uplo...120702.jpg]

[nky]

notice when those taxes take effect

[TheRealVille]

[Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uplo...120702.jpg]

Another conservative media rag. nicker: I've saw figures that say it will save 127 billion a year in taxes. Who's right?

[nky]

http://atr.org/mandate-tax-obama-lied-his-way-a7002

1. The Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax: Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by Obama-appointed bureaucrats -- must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following:

1 Adult
2 Adults
3+ Adults
2014
1% AGI/$95
1% AGI/$190
1% AGI/$285
2015
2% AGI/$325
2% AGI/$650
2% AGI/$975
2016 +
2.5% AGI/$695
2.5% AGI/$1390
2.5% AGI/$2085

2. The Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax: This tax took effect in January 2011 and prevents Americans from being able to use their health savings account (HSA),flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
3. The Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”: Starting in January 2013, Obamacare imposes a cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited under federal law). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
4. The Obamacare "Haircut" to the Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI: Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). Beginning in January 2013, this new Obamacare provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI.
5. The Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike: This provision, which took effect in January 2011, increases the tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
6. The Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services: Since July of 2010, Americans using indoor tanning salons face a new 10 percent excise tax.
7. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans: Starting in 2018, this provision imposes a new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher thresholds exists for early retirees and those in high-risk professions.


Read more: http://atr.org/mandate-tax-obama-lied-hi...z1zW8Puxy4

[Bob Seger]

What are you talking about franchise distributors? Or those that are granted certain regions? How does that even sound like capitalism at all?

IT IS GOVT. REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE THERE TO BE DISTRIBUTORS. It is called the three tiered system. WSWA is the lobby that has been fighting in DC to keep that system in place. That lobby represents the current big boys in alcohol sales.

The three tiered LAW, requires alcohol makers sell their product to a wholesale distributor, who then sells it to the retail stores, who then sell it to the customer. This also increases the cost to the customer by 25%.

This is a ridiculous law that was put in when prohibition was done away with. If not for the WSWA lobby this law would have already been revoked. However, they ensure it stays in place by giving money to politicians.

The result is AB has full dominion over the distributors. Not because of some contract. Because no matter what AB has to sell to a distributor. They can do it by threatening to take their business elsewhere. Which is all fine and good, that is AB's right.

However, the point is that the law should not even exist, and only still does because of lobbyists. Alcohol makers should have the right to sell their product to the retail stores. That way the consumer can choose what product he wants from a wide variety. The best product/service for the best price will win the day. That is how our country's economy was intended to work. Not this quasi communist BS we have in place now.

Our choices when it comes to Banking/Insurance/Auto/Fuel/Energy/Food. Those choices are already made for us, we just have this fake idea of freedom in this country.

There are a handful of companies in each sector making all the decisions and policies for those industries. They have the Fed. Govt. in their back pocket, and use them to ensure they maintain their grip.

In the meantime, prices continue to rise, while quality of service continues to decrease.

Franchise distributors vs. those that are granted certain regions? It's all the same thing you ding a ling!!!


Good Grief Beetle, Where do consistantly come up with all this garbage??? Where do you come up with this 25% more cost stuff? Distributors can generally distribute products at a lower cost than a manufacturer can. There are very few company owned routes in anything, compared to distributor ran routes. Manufacturers want to concentrate on manufacturing products, not to be in the DSD service business because it is one giant nightmare and pain in the butt. Bottom line, generally there are cost savings to the consumer!!!! Are you so dumb as to know that almost all distributors are subject of a dominion from the company that does the manufacturing when it comes to food products? They are ruled and controlled with a giant thumb when it comes to how their products are marketed and distributed. You do it their way. After all it's their reputations and their product's integrity that are being put on the lines. They are going to make dang sure they have qualified and reputable distributing companies marketing their products and servicing the accounts that have contracted. You cannot have 3 or 4 distributors of the same product running all over top of each other selling the exact same product. It is in a manufacturers best interest to make sure that whomever is distributing their products if financialy successful. What good does it do to have 3 or 4 different product perveyors under cutting each other? Soooner or later there would be none surviving.


As I have repeatedly said, and it's just like always, you DO NOT have the first clue as to what you are rattling on about. No, I'll just be more blunt and honest about it. You are just plain and simply a blooming idiot. Or when it comes to BGR, "the village idiot".

You are argueing with the wrong dog here pal. I'll eat your lunch every day of the week and twice on Sundays on this stuff.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I know i want to pay for somebody elses health insurance which is all this amounts to if your in the middle class.

[Beetle01]

Franchise distributors vs. those that are granted certain regions? It's all the same thing you ding a ling!!!


Good Grief Beetle, Where do consistantly come up with all this garbage??? Where do you come up with this 25% more cost stuff? Distributors can generally distribute products at a lower cost than a manufacturer can. There are very few company owned routes in anything, compared to distributor ran routes. Manufacturers want to concentrate on manufacturing products, not to be in the DSD service business because it is one giant nightmare and pain in the butt. Bottom line, generally there are cost savings to the consumer!!!! Are you so dumb as to know that almost all distributors are subject of a dominion from the company that does the manufacturing when it comes to food products? They are ruled and controlled with a giant thumb when it comes to how their products are marketed and distributed. You do it their way. After all it's their reputations and their product's integrity that are being put on the lines. They are going to make dang sure they have qualified and reputable distributing companies marketing their products and servicing the accounts that have contracted. You cannot have 3 or 4 distributors of the same product running all over top of each other selling the exact same product. It is in a manufacturers best interest to make sure that whomever is distributing their products if financialy successful. What good does it do to have 3 or 4 different product perveyors under cutting each other? Soooner or later there would be none surviving.


As I have repeatedly said, and it's just like always, you DO NOT have the first clue as to what you are rattling on about. No, I'll just be more blunt and honest about it. You are just plain and simply a blooming idiot. Or when it comes to BGR, "the village idiot".

You are argueing with the wrong dog here pal. I'll eat your lunch every day of the week and twice on Sundays on this stuff.

Distributors aren't mandated by Federal law in the other industries. They are used for ease and costs savings. However, in the case we are discussing, AB uses federal law to monopolize the market.

If I wanted to create a food company and sell my products, I could use a local distributor, however, if a big mother food company decides to blackmail the distributor into not carrying my products, then I could bypass the distributor and still sell my product to the retailers. The companies have no power to wield over the retailers since those are the ones who sell to the customer.

If Kraft tried to tell Kroger's not to sell my product or they would not allow them to sell Kraft foods, Kroger's would tell them to shove off. If my produce/product was in demand enough. That move would only hurt Kraft. People usually use one or 2 grocery stores. If Kraft isn't available, people will then purchase whatever other product they can that is similar.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jumped on the bandwagon against the three tier system recently. In a report released last year, the FTC concluded that the three tier system limited consumer options and increased the price of alcoholic beverages. It noted that "wine and spirits have the most expensive distribution system of any packaged-goods industry by far, with margins more than twice those in the food business." The FTC reviewed the core regulatory concerns of tax collection and temperance and found that those purposes could be met by other means that had less impact on free trade. It concluded that most of the system was an "abuse of the regulatory process to protect concentrated economic interests" which hurts consumers by limiting the choices of wine and driving up consumer prices.


Here's a link for ya, with a nice article about the 3 tiered system and its effect on prices, and how much they spend on federal campaigns. They spend more than the AFLCIO.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opini...e.htm?_r=1

I'm sure you'll have some more schoolyard insults to toss my way to show everyone how big of a man you are.

[TheRealThing]

Distributors aren't mandated by Federal law in the other industries. They are used for ease and costs savings. However, in the case we are discussing, AB uses federal law to monopolize the market.

If I wanted to create a food company and sell my products, I could use a local distributor, however, if a big mother food company decides to blackmail the distributor into not carrying my products, then I could bypass the distributor and still sell my product to the retailers. The companies have no power to wield over the retailers since those are the ones who sell to the customer.

If Kraft tried to tell Kroger's not to sell my product or they would not allow them to sell Kraft foods, Kroger's would tell them to shove off. If my produce/product was in demand enough. That move would only hurt Kraft. People usually use one or 2 grocery stores. If Kraft isn't available, people will then purchase whatever other product they can that is similar.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jumped on the bandwagon against the three tier system recently. In a report released last year, the FTC concluded that the three tier system limited consumer options and increased the price of alcoholic beverages. It noted that "wine and spirits have the most expensive distribution system of any packaged-goods industry by far, with margins more than twice those in the food business." The FTC reviewed the core regulatory concerns of tax collection and temperance and found that those purposes could be met by other means that had less impact on free trade. It concluded that most of the system was an "abuse of the regulatory process to protect concentrated economic interests" which hurts consumers by limiting the choices of wine and driving up consumer prices.


Here's a link for ya, with a nice article about the 3 tiered system and its effect on prices, and how much they spend on federal campaigns. They spend more than the AFLCIO.https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opini...e.htm?_r=1

I'm sure you'll have some more schoolyard insults to toss my way to show everyone how big of a man you are.

I know you'll never be able to let this alone but, campaign finance and reform is not the biggest problem we deal with these days. Same old libertarian song and dance routine. Personally I don't care how much business, or the AFLCIO spend on the campaigns, as long as at least one side tells the truth. That is the unfortunate nature of our problem these days. One side is lying their head off about their own actions and intentions. While misrepresenting the actions and intentions of their cohorts across the aisle. The dems are the ones doing all the lying and the republicans find themselves on their heels a lot because of a lack of direction and occassionally committment on their own part. I'd say you lean toward supporting this administation and the dems in general.

As to your question, I know enough doc's to formulate an oppinion, and if it's all the same to you, when it comes to "where I get my news" I'll take news from anywhere other than you :please:

One last point. As to your assertion, "If everyone had insurance, the overall cost of the HC at the provider level would decrease rapidly over a matter of a couple of years, if not sooner." Well, everyone may HAVE insurance under this plan. The problem is, everyone will not PAY for insurance under this plan. They will still be sluggardly drains on the system, such as it is, and folks that are accustomed to paying for their family and the sluggards will still pay for their family and the sluggards. Governmental intrusion considered, the medical system will be the worse for said intrusion. The end result being this, people who pay now will pay then, people who don't pay now won't pay then. Therefore nothing has changed except the bureaucratic meddling of Ozombie administration. And, of course, the skyrocketing medical costs and insurance premiums.