This is also complete BS. The ideal has never been given a chance? Dude I hate to break it to you, but communism (which is the ultimate definition of wealth transfer) has been tried all over the globe. And with limited exception it has utterly failed every time. China is a notable exception, but its success is more attributable to the Chinese government's recent relaxation of communist practices.
To the right wing, the 8 most dangerous words in the English language "Hi, I'm your neighbour nice to meet you." These people despise society and the very idea that they share in that society makes their skin crawl. You see Reagan taught them well. That from their hard work an injustice is incurred. Some place, somewhere there is black person buying a T-bone steak with food stamps, some redneck with a car on blocks in the front yard but a big screen in the window. The men of "pure" labor are being robbed and their wealth is being shared. Reagan and his right wing children are soiled wholly in the indoctrination of victimhood.
I pissed my pants with laughter at this, fantastic work!
:biggrin:
You don't live in the south, do you detective dip shit? People in the south are some of the friendlist around ya'll. People living in crunched apartment complex's are the one's that lack any social interaction.
-snip-
....my point in this thread is to complain about yet another thinly veiled wealth transfer.
Yes, it is a wealth transfer scheme.
The Dems can no longer do it with income tax law so they decided to screw up our HC system by hijacking for wealth transfer purposes.
It's a rather curious transfer scheme though. Why the healthy and young should be called upon to transfer wealth to the old and sick is puzzling. I suppose once they get all involved in transferring wealth they just get carried away with it.
Fern
If you say so.....we are now part of the collective comrades. Let's go kill the Czar. Bat shit crazy talk can be found just above.
Yes, it is a wealth transfer scheme.
The Dems can no longer do it with income tax law so they decided to screw up our HC system by hijacking for wealth transfer purposes.
It's a rather curious transfer scheme though. Why the healthy and young should be called upon to transfer wealth to the old and sick is puzzling. I suppose once they get all involved in transferring wealth they just get carried away with it.
Fern
It's puzzling for rightwingers that healthy young, and affluent should provide for care for the old, sick, and poor? Comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted?
I'm not in favor of lying for you to get what you say they don't want. Then I'm not in favor of what you have demonstrated you are for either. People ought to have a chance to get quality care and neither side wants that. They want to win.
It's puzzling for rightwingers that healthy young, and affluent should provide for care for the old, sick, and poor? Comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted?
Fair enough, but this goes both ways.
Free market health care has been given a chance too, and it failed. That's why we got Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare.
Universal health coverage, either government paid or with an insurance mandate, has also been tried in industrialized countries all over the globe. And they get better health outcomes while spending half of what we do on health care.
How are the affluent having their wealth transferred?
Premiums aren't based on your income/wealth. In European systems where HC is paid for with a tax on your salary etc I could see that claim, but not with Obamacare.
Fern
How are the affluent having their wealth transferred?
Premiums aren't based on your income/wealth. In European systems where HC is paid for with a tax on your salary etc I could see that claim, but not with Obamacare.
Fern
Premiums for the poor are subsidized.
The ACA levies an additional tax of 0.9% on joint incomes over $250,000, in part to pay for premium subsidies. Additionally, there is a new tax of 3.9% on unearned income for filers with a joint AGI in excess of $250,000.
You are factually wrong. I love your ideas but in the real world its bullshit, and we both know it. Theres a hell of a lot of people who wont ever work no matter how hungry they get. All you have to do is look at "someone gotta pay for all these kids" to see the proof of that. The idea that if we provide a basic standard of living for people they will be motivated to work is laughable immature.
Thats actually not true. Free market healthcare was a resounding success, offering top tier helathcare to those who had insurance. The problem, the ultimate turning point to the road to failure, was 2 part. Firstly it was assuming we needed to provide healthcare to every man woman and child regardless of their contribution to society and secondly it was legislation which forced hospitals to do so.
If anything healthcare is the perfect point to prove government interference DOESNT work. Healthcare is one of the most strictly regulated industries out there. Can insurance providers cross state lines? Can hospitals refuse service? The list goes on.
I understand that. But you needn't be affluent to fail to qualify for a subsidy. I.e., it's a wealth transfer from the non-poor to the poor. To claim the affluent is incorrect by omission.
We were talking about premiums. The two items you mentioned are not premiums, but taxes.
(But now that I think about more there might be some kind of tax actually levied on premiums. I think I saw that claimed last night. I believe the annual amount quoted was about $277. In any case, it's not just for the affluent.)
Again, if you want to see a real transfer from the affluent look to the European model.
Fern
If free market health care was such a success, why was Medicare created?
-snip-
They are taxes that exist in large part to support premium subsidies. Attempting to separate the two is wrong.
You asked, I answered.
Medicare wasn't created because of any free market failure in HC. The program has its roots going back to the early 1900's when the poverty rate was high.
Medicare and its predecessors were subsidy programs to help the poor.
Fern
Are the taxes going into a trust?
If not, we don't know where that money will be spent. IMO, they were added to make the thing not appear to be so expensive (e.g., for CBO estimate purposes), like the tax on medical equipment.
Fern
when we go back to being an agrarian society with virtually unlimited landUgh. When are we as Americans going to get fed up with this BS and revert to the federal government our forefathers intended? One with LIMITED powers and which is run by people who's head is far enough removed from their ass that they can at least read the bills they vote to pass.