chasteh

>Your argument seems to be "if you are already buying one of their products, then you'll be allowed to keep doing that--ergo, you are not required to buy one." It would if you demonstrated how that bill limits who you buy insurance from. There are an assortment of options listed there. >You are required to buy a health insurance plan. You must buy it from someone who sells one. The only people currently selling them are the insurance companies. You are forced to buy a plan, at least it seems so far. (I have yet to find a section of the bill demonstrating how having enough money/wealth would allow you to avoid buying insurance - similiar to how you don't have to buy car insurance here if you can demonstrate that you can afford to insure yourself.) Yep. You must buy a plan from someone who sells one. Aand of course, the people selling insurance plans are insurance companies. That statement is still far more broad than "you must buy one of their plans." Did you just so happen to include all the providers of qualified plans within the list of insurers you posted earlier? If so, are you really upset that your restricted to buying plans from a set of insurers that provided all your options anyway? >That's pretty nonsensical, don't you think? Claiming that you have to buy one of "their" plans but not showing how the bill requires that is. C'mon Tom, be nice. (Well, not too nice, but please prove your point- show where it says you have to buy from amongst that list and that any other insurance company providing the benefits listed in the bill would not be acceptable by the bill..)

>He never said you had to buy one of "their" plans but you have to have "a" plan or you are taxed an additional amount Read Tom's posts. Yes he did.

Nope. They will just find someone to replace you who can get the job done just as well. Also, busting your ass doesn't always give you more money either. Maybe it does in sales roles or as an entrepreneur, but it doesn't in hourly jobs. The only reason firms hire hourly hands is because they haven't quite found machines to do the same job. One is as replacable as the other will be.

Yea yea quade. We know. You've said that before.

>Why do you have such an issue with following the law? I do? Well if I did I would just provide rationalizations as opposed to reasons, and say that I don't support specific laws, and so I decide not to follow them. You know, sort of like middle class conservatives do when they occasionally decide to not pay their income taxes or find loopholes with which to avoid paying.

>if you give a shit what I think, you better find something better to do with your time I woke up today thinking: you know what chasteh, lets find some crazy person on dz.com and then nitpick at one small thing that they said. This is that time. You and I must know each other, as you seem confident in the consequences I will suffer were I to not find something better with my time.

Me too. Maybe we can discuss what bearing that has here sometime. >BTW Bigots can be liberals as well, they just lie about it better. Sure sure. Unfortunately, you just might be more suspicious of the "common sense"-based political perspectives out there and the bigotry that they endorse.

>Who gives a shit? Well, this is an online forum dedicated to debating political issues, so pretty much everyone here does. ">We have enough educators already blaming our country for all the problems of the world, do we need more indoctrination in that venue?" Actually, yes. It is quite important, just as it was when the U.S. constitution (that document you were defending - remember?) was being drafted. >Maybe I was defending someones right to be a hand wringing liberal fucktard. As much as you were defending the rights of bigoted persons. >The only thing that mattered was the constitution and following LAWFUL orders. Uh oh. For the purposes of limiting the number of rant wars I am currently involved in, I will leave this one for someone else.

>Here we go again The point is that you are saying it is ok that people think what they want, and at the same time you are saying otherwise.

Were you also serving those persons, even alongside you, who thought otherwise about the conflicts you were involved in? What about the civilians who live and are protected by the constitution you fought for? Are you saying that those who exercise specific rights within that constitution may not be considered worthy of your defense? edit: >If it is personal choice, do whatever you like but don't complain or sue if others do. Ok. Are you complaining about others doing whatever they like then?

>twist away As if quoting '>try to make my words say whatever you want' didn't make that clear enough. Remember, you still took MY statement out of context - oh well.

>try to make my words say whatever you want. You know my intention was responding to the remark about the illegals paying sales tax. Interesting. And it doesn't negate my statement that services must be paid for at some point in time. >and you know that it's more than "there exists at least one person that hasn't paid sales tax" Would you be referring here to the corporate executive who is able to substantially reduce most of the taxes paid during his consumption as a result of "business espenses," or to the business he operates and the corporate tax rates he takes advantage of and society doesn't see in return, or to all the sales taxes combined that were left unpaid, in total, by those illegal immigrants? Which number do you think is more?

That merely defines "grandfathered in" more explicitly. It does not limit your purchasing options, it only explains who is "grandfathered in"

>That sounds like thousands of jobs. Including ongoing infrastructure maintainence. That sounds like it might subtract from the economic problem. Well if you are a conservative, you are highly unlikely to support the government being the only source of revenue for the persons filling those jobs. Also, if you are a conservative, you would say that it is not the government's purpose to "subtract from the economic problem" because it results in socialistic authoritarian control patterns. >The problem with building a fence at the border is where are they going to find the day labor to build it? Carlos Mencia would tell you: Have the mexicans start it, then put them all on the other side of it to finish it off! Hooray!

>so... you were saying?? >>...at some point in time you have to pay for the things the government provides... Cute. So now you're down to saying: "There has been a person at some point in time who has not had to pay sales tax." I applaude you for the amount of time it took to establish that for me. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite demonstrate how government services go unpaid for, even for them (particularly if they are the ones most likely to be found building the public infrastructure that you blaim them for not paying for) Interestingly enough, you have also done quite well to shift focus from the point at hand: That the wealthy depend greatly un public infrastructure. (And from Quade's posts, not that I agree or disagree, that the wealthy should pay more for those services)

"‘‘(d) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.— 13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of this 14 subsection are met with respect to any individual for 15 any period if such individual (and each qualifying 16 child of such individual) is covered by acceptable 17 coverage at all times during such period. 18 ‘‘(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—For purposes 19 of this section, the term ‘acceptable coverage’ means 20 any of the following: 21 ‘‘(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN 22 COVERAGE.—Coverage under a qualified health 23 benefits plan (as defined in section 100(c) of 24 the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 25 2009). VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS 172 •HR 3200 IH 1 ‘‘(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSUR2 ANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER GRAND3 FATHERED EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH 4 PLAN.—Coverage under a grandfathered health 5 insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) 6 of section 102 of the America’s Affordable 7 Health Choices Act of 2009) or under a current 8 employment-based health plan (within the 9 meaning of subsection (b) of such section). 10 ‘‘(C) MEDICARE.—Coverage under part A 11 of title XVIII of the Social Security Act. 12 ‘‘(D) MEDICAID.—Coverage for medical as13 sistance under title XIX of the Social Security 14 Act. 15 ‘‘(E) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 16 AND DEPENDENTS (INCLUDING TRICARE).— 17 Coverage under chapter 55 of title 10, United 18 States Code, including similar coverage fur19 nished under section 1781 of title 38 of such 20 Code. 21 ‘‘(F) VA.—Coverage under the veteran’s 22 health care program under chapter 17 of title 23 38, United States Code, but only if the cov24 erage for the individual involved is determined 25 by the Secretary in coordination with the VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS 173 •HR 3200 IH 1 Health Choices Commissioner to be not less 2 than the level specified by the Secretary of the 3 Treasury, in coordination with the Secretary of 4 Veteran’s Affairs and the Health Choices Com5 missioner, based on the individual’s priority for 6 services as provided under section 1705(a) of 7 such title. 8 ‘‘(G) OTHER COVERAGE.—Such other 9 health benefits coverage as the Secretary, in co10 ordination with the Health Choices Commis11 sioner, recognizes for purposes of this sub12 section." Thus, you are not forced to buy one of "their" plans. Several provisions here say that you do not. (Including you, since you already have insurance plans - err, I mean, you do don't you?) I wonder if the Bill has any slippery slope insurance...

Not convinced yet, because I cannot seem to find a site that allows me to even look at the bill without my computer freezing. edit: I want to look at subpart d. Also, I want to see other provisions, like the ones that demonstrate how the insurance is to be provided to those who can't buy their own alternative, like you are likely to do. Also, I thought the goal was to provide people with insurance - not to fine people for not having it or to give the government another reason to incarcerate them. edit: Will see PDF works better. Typing short to reduce memory usage. "(1) IN GENERAL- The purpose of this division is to provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending. (2) BUILDING ON CURRENT SYSTEM- This division achieves this purpose by building on what works in today’s health care system, while repairing the aspects that are broken. (3) INSURANCE REFORMS- This division-- (A) enacts strong insurance market reforms; (B) creates a new Health Insurance Exchange, with a public health insurance option alongside private plans; (C) includes sliding scale affordability credits; and (D) initiates shared responsibility among workers, employers, and the government; so that all Americans have coverage of essential health benefits. (4) HEALTH DELIVERY REFORM- This division institutes health delivery system reforms both to increase quality and to reduce growth in health spending so that health care becomes more affordable for businesses, families, and government. " And to reduce the size of my post overall.

Interesting. However, I am still waiting for one of you guys to present something official about this.

So what are you trying to say? That the banks didn't get themselves into their financial problems alone? Where does that become incompatible what what I said?

Then what happened to the part of the bill that said persons not interested in the social program will be able to buy their own policies?

Why stop there? "In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals" ""Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, "One of the things we don't feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors." Sounds like irresponsibility, too.

>That all depends. How much of that hole was caused by forced government regulations and how much by mismanagement? You are saying the holes were caused by regulations? I could have sworn, and catch me if I am wrong here, that this financial mess was caused by the fact that Americans by and large were getting loans that they could not pay, overloading their credit cards, and ended up foreclosing on their homes. Isn't that actually a combination of mismanagement of loan lenders, consumers, and the lack of loan regulations that allowed this? >they aren't the only ones responsible Sure. But at the same time it can be quite easily said that they conducted their busnesses irresponsibly - and according to any anti-welfare clone, giving them billions of dollars in tax payer dollars is unacceptable.

>A buzzword concocted to give a negative connotation to job producing business incentives. Nevertheless, the "buzzword" also represents a major flaw. The government, here, acts as a provider of "incentives," if you want to call them that, which removes traditional market forces as threats to the survival of the firm. In other words, it is a form of socialism, which removes power from the hands of the people to the hands of government officials - who dictate how, where, and why government funds get spent, and who has to pay them. >job producing Yea, they do end up producing more jobs. However, it removes the economy as a force that supplies that job. >business incentives Unfortunately, businesses in a free market have to market themselves to persons to maintain their customer base. Removing that from the equation results in businesses that "cheat" at the process.

>What IS important is how it affects their lives. I think that gets lost too often in the arguing over religious details. Mmmm yea it is important, but unfortunately the game is played so that what is postulated in the religious texts is said to be the truth. Also, if the religious details weren't important and their tenants considered truths, then it would be much harder to achieve the security and fulfillment that comes by accepting those tenants.

No, you did not say 'or even a law that regulates employment numbers and wages would make sense here' as the statement was in parentheses, and the statement is finishe with 'would make sense here.' >You said that higher taxes end up in the cost of the product. That is what you were saying. 'or even a law that regulates employment numbers and wages would make sense here' makes sense because if you were to hold the employment level constant and add a tax, it would force the price of something to increase. (or force the firm to reduce the cost of other inputs like capital or raw materials) edit: Thus making consumers pay the tax as part of the product's price.