fact check Rush limbaugh leaving country i fheath care passes
- Thread starter beaslbob
- Start date
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3244233
One thing people seem to lose sight of is the government has no authority to force us to buy insurance nor do they have the authority to confiscate insurance companies assets. Pesky constitution thing.
I am going to disagree actually. If states can mandate car insurance and this passes by, what is the difference between that and heath insurance.
If the health insurance is unconstitutional, then so would be car insurance and therefore would have been taken to the supreme court and overturned, the first state that passed this law.
http:///forum/post/3244233
One thing people seem to lose sight of is the government has no authority to force us to buy insurance nor do they have the authority to confiscate insurance companies assets. Pesky constitution thing.
I am going to disagree actually. If states can mandate car insurance and this passes by, what is the difference between that and heath insurance.
If the health insurance is unconstitutional, then so would be car insurance and therefore would have been taken to the supreme court and overturned, the first state that passed this law.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3244378
I am going to disagree actually. If states can mandate car insurance and this passes by, what is the difference between that and heath insurance.
If the health insurance is unconstitutional, then so would be car insurance and therefore would have been taken to the supreme court and overturned, the first state that passed this law.
I think there is a clear difference, in auto insurance your required to purchase insurance for the other car, you can do whatever you want regarding insuring your own car. The stipulation of the car note requires you to buy your insurance on the car you own.
http:///forum/post/3244378
I am going to disagree actually. If states can mandate car insurance and this passes by, what is the difference between that and heath insurance.
If the health insurance is unconstitutional, then so would be car insurance and therefore would have been taken to the supreme court and overturned, the first state that passed this law.
I think there is a clear difference, in auto insurance your required to purchase insurance for the other car, you can do whatever you want regarding insuring your own car. The stipulation of the car note requires you to buy your insurance on the car you own.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3244386
I think there is a clear difference, in auto insurance your required to purchase insurance for the other car, you can do whatever you want regarding insuring your own car. The stipulation of the car note requires you to buy your insurance on the car you own.
Regardless. How is this constitutional and the other one is not.
You stated the intent of the law. You did not defend it under constitutionality (is that a word even)?
Darth (devil's advocate) Tang
http:///forum/post/3244386
I think there is a clear difference, in auto insurance your required to purchase insurance for the other car, you can do whatever you want regarding insuring your own car. The stipulation of the car note requires you to buy your insurance on the car you own.
Regardless. How is this constitutional and the other one is not.
You stated the intent of the law. You did not defend it under constitutionality (is that a word even)?
Darth (devil's advocate) Tang
sickboy
Active Member
The German system is the best, IMO.
On another note, though I am for Federal reform, why does Washington feel the need to regulate insurance markets? You hear about some company in Cali jacking their rates...but why did Cali decide not to regulate the industry? I think half of the states have formal regulatory agencies. Here in Nebraska we have the Department of Insurance that regulates the companies operating within the border. Insurance premium increases are examined by this entity and either allowed or not.
On another note, though I am for Federal reform, why does Washington feel the need to regulate insurance markets? You hear about some company in Cali jacking their rates...but why did Cali decide not to regulate the industry? I think half of the states have formal regulatory agencies. Here in Nebraska we have the Department of Insurance that regulates the companies operating within the border. Insurance premium increases are examined by this entity and either allowed or not.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3244117
Compete for what?
krikey this is getting to be a tiresome argument. Non-profit does not mean there is no profit, it means what's left over has to be re-invested into the business as opposed to being distributed to shareholders. It doesn't mean that individuals w/in the company can't make money, it means that the company itself can't.
Sheesh. I thought you understood tax law...
http:///forum/post/3244117
Compete for what?
krikey this is getting to be a tiresome argument. Non-profit does not mean there is no profit, it means what's left over has to be re-invested into the business as opposed to being distributed to shareholders. It doesn't mean that individuals w/in the company can't make money, it means that the company itself can't.
Sheesh. I thought you understood tax law...
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3244068
You might want to go back and look at some posts, You got me confused with someone else.
No, I don't have you confused w/ someone else: https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/vb/s...ismarck&page=3 Post #103. There are previous threads in which we've had the same debate as well. Sorry, I can't be bothered to look them up. You could perhaps search your own words, however...
http:///forum/post/3244068
You might want to go back and look at some posts, You got me confused with someone else.
No, I don't have you confused w/ someone else: https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/vb/s...ismarck&page=3 Post #103. There are previous threads in which we've had the same debate as well. Sorry, I can't be bothered to look them up. You could perhaps search your own words, however...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3244502
krikey this is getting to be a tiresome argument. Non-profit does not mean there is no profit, it means what's left over has to be re-invested into the business as opposed to being distributed to shareholders. It doesn't mean that individuals w/in the company can't make money, it means that the company itself can't.
Sheesh. I thought you understood tax law...
Isn't that that same reinvestment the reason why you ignore the argument that complains that company x only has 5% profit...
http:///forum/post/3244502
krikey this is getting to be a tiresome argument. Non-profit does not mean there is no profit, it means what's left over has to be re-invested into the business as opposed to being distributed to shareholders. It doesn't mean that individuals w/in the company can't make money, it means that the company itself can't.
Sheesh. I thought you understood tax law...
Isn't that that same reinvestment the reason why you ignore the argument that complains that company x only has 5% profit...
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3244510
Isn't that that same reinvestment the reason why you ignore the argument that complains that company x only has 5% profit...
Not 100% sure I understand the question, but I think the answer is: No.
5% profit over what period of time? Annually? Especially in this economy, not bad.
5% profit w/in the industry? How does that compare to others in the same business?
My point is that all businesses profit. If they didn't, they couldn't continue to exist. The only question is whom do the profits go to? Back to the business itself, or to the shareholders?
I have no objection to shareholders taking profit in general. VC, stockholders, etc. have their place.
What I object to is third party, uninterested, investors adding costs to the process of health care so that they can make money on my illness. It's crass at very best and enhances my health not at all.
http:///forum/post/3244510
Isn't that that same reinvestment the reason why you ignore the argument that complains that company x only has 5% profit...
Not 100% sure I understand the question, but I think the answer is: No.
5% profit over what period of time? Annually? Especially in this economy, not bad.
5% profit w/in the industry? How does that compare to others in the same business?
My point is that all businesses profit. If they didn't, they couldn't continue to exist. The only question is whom do the profits go to? Back to the business itself, or to the shareholders?
I have no objection to shareholders taking profit in general. VC, stockholders, etc. have their place.
What I object to is third party, uninterested, investors adding costs to the process of health care so that they can make money on my illness. It's crass at very best and enhances my health not at all.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3244378
I am going to disagree actually. If states can mandate car insurance and this passes by, what is the difference between that and heath insurance.
If the health insurance is unconstitutional, then so would be car insurance and therefore would have been taken to the supreme court and overturned, the first state that passed this law.
If you had to buy car insurance whether you drive or not then it would be a constitutional matter. Nobody in any state HAS to buy car insurance. Driving is not a right, thus not covered by the same protections.
http:///forum/post/3244378
I am going to disagree actually. If states can mandate car insurance and this passes by, what is the difference between that and heath insurance.
If the health insurance is unconstitutional, then so would be car insurance and therefore would have been taken to the supreme court and overturned, the first state that passed this law.
If you had to buy car insurance whether you drive or not then it would be a constitutional matter. Nobody in any state HAS to buy car insurance. Driving is not a right, thus not covered by the same protections.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3244508
No, I don't have you confused w/ someone else: https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/vb/s...ismarck&page=3 Post #103. There are previous threads in which we've had the same debate as well. Sorry, I can't be bothered to look them up. You could perhaps search your own words, however...
Ahh, I remember now, You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Don't think we were talking the German system by name. My bad,
But anyway the objection is still the same. You can't just go to Blue Cross and say "you are now a non profit".
I like the idea of making everyone buy health insurance. Can't do it here, at least I seriously doubt it will stand the promised constitutional challenge. Maybe Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can get together and start a not for profit insurance company.
http:///forum/post/3244508
No, I don't have you confused w/ someone else: https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/vb/s...ismarck&page=3 Post #103. There are previous threads in which we've had the same debate as well. Sorry, I can't be bothered to look them up. You could perhaps search your own words, however...
Ahh, I remember now, You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Don't think we were talking the German system by name. My bad,
But anyway the objection is still the same. You can't just go to Blue Cross and say "you are now a non profit".
I like the idea of making everyone buy health insurance. Can't do it here, at least I seriously doubt it will stand the promised constitutional challenge. Maybe Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can get together and start a not for profit insurance company.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3244523
Not 100% sure I understand the question, but I think the answer is: No.
5% profit over what period of time? Annually? Especially in this economy, not bad.
5% profit w/in the industry? How does that compare to others in the same business?
My point is that all businesses profit. If they didn't, they couldn't continue to exist. The only question is whom do the profits go to? Back to the business itself, or to the shareholders?
I have no objection to shareholders taking profit in general. VC, stockholders, etc. have their place.
What I object to is third party, uninterested, investors adding costs to the process of health care so that they can make money on my illness. It's crass at very best and enhances my health not at all.
right now the annual average profit of the private health insurers is 3.3%. I think the term "Amounts to a frog belch in a hurricane" would be appropriate.
And in this economy the Phara companies who are in bed with Obama on health care do just a bit better, last year Pfizer did better than 17% Abbot did over 18%. Why no outrage directed at them? Oh, yeah, they are on his side
http:///forum/post/3244523
Not 100% sure I understand the question, but I think the answer is: No.
5% profit over what period of time? Annually? Especially in this economy, not bad.
5% profit w/in the industry? How does that compare to others in the same business?
My point is that all businesses profit. If they didn't, they couldn't continue to exist. The only question is whom do the profits go to? Back to the business itself, or to the shareholders?
I have no objection to shareholders taking profit in general. VC, stockholders, etc. have their place.
What I object to is third party, uninterested, investors adding costs to the process of health care so that they can make money on my illness. It's crass at very best and enhances my health not at all.
right now the annual average profit of the private health insurers is 3.3%. I think the term "Amounts to a frog belch in a hurricane" would be appropriate.
And in this economy the Phara companies who are in bed with Obama on health care do just a bit better, last year Pfizer did better than 17% Abbot did over 18%. Why no outrage directed at them? Oh, yeah, they are on his side
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3244523
Not 100% sure I understand the question, but I think the answer is: No.
5% profit over what period of time? Annually? Especially in this economy, not bad.
5% profit w/in the industry? How does that compare to others in the same business?
My point is that all businesses profit. If they didn't, they couldn't continue to exist. The only question is whom do the profits go to? Back to the business itself, or to the shareholders?
I have no objection to shareholders taking profit in general. VC, stockholders, etc. have their place.
What I object to is third party, uninterested, investors adding costs to the process of health care so that they can make money on my illness. It's crass at very best and enhances my health not at all.
O well it isn't the point, markups due to business manipulations isn't what has driven up the costs of an xray.
The cost is driven up imo because of the model. I'm gonna make this same argument. The insurance model is a small scale (slightly more efficient) version of a government run single payer system. You have premiums which are taxes, risk spread out over the premium payers or citizens. And an entity insurance company or government that pays out payments for service. The difference is you have thousands of insurances companies vs a single payer.
The result is that the end user doesn't end up paying for services, a 3rd party does. So the end user doesn't care about price (it also helps that the product is very inelastic) so prices don't reflect market rates because no one is pricing anything. And the pricing is preset through negotiations with the companies. so basically you don't have the end user setting the price (where markets do work) but instead you have 2 groups of people, one required to pay the other required to provide the service. Then you have a market failure...
The problem with the bismark system is that it doesn't address the root problem. The end user is not the buyer.
Instead it banks on removing the profits from various entities, which isn't that much anyway...
http:///forum/post/3244523
Not 100% sure I understand the question, but I think the answer is: No.
5% profit over what period of time? Annually? Especially in this economy, not bad.
5% profit w/in the industry? How does that compare to others in the same business?
My point is that all businesses profit. If they didn't, they couldn't continue to exist. The only question is whom do the profits go to? Back to the business itself, or to the shareholders?
I have no objection to shareholders taking profit in general. VC, stockholders, etc. have their place.
What I object to is third party, uninterested, investors adding costs to the process of health care so that they can make money on my illness. It's crass at very best and enhances my health not at all.
O well it isn't the point, markups due to business manipulations isn't what has driven up the costs of an xray.
The cost is driven up imo because of the model. I'm gonna make this same argument. The insurance model is a small scale (slightly more efficient) version of a government run single payer system. You have premiums which are taxes, risk spread out over the premium payers or citizens. And an entity insurance company or government that pays out payments for service. The difference is you have thousands of insurances companies vs a single payer.
The result is that the end user doesn't end up paying for services, a 3rd party does. So the end user doesn't care about price (it also helps that the product is very inelastic) so prices don't reflect market rates because no one is pricing anything. And the pricing is preset through negotiations with the companies. so basically you don't have the end user setting the price (where markets do work) but instead you have 2 groups of people, one required to pay the other required to provide the service. Then you have a market failure...
The problem with the bismark system is that it doesn't address the root problem. The end user is not the buyer.
Instead it banks on removing the profits from various entities, which isn't that much anyway...
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3244524
If you had to buy car insurance whether you drive or not then it would be a constitutional matter. Nobody in any state HAS to buy car insurance. Driving is not a right, thus not covered by the same protections.
Ok, so mandatory purchase of healthcare is unconstitutional. This I would agree....but in a sense...this is already on the books. we already pay mandatory healthcare. medicare and medicade taxes., essentially we are forced to pay for our future retirement heathcare program. This has stood the constitutional scrutiny...has it not?
Also this still doesn't explain how government ran heathcare would be unconstitutional. mandatory, possibly, but a govt plan...no.
http:///forum/post/3244524
If you had to buy car insurance whether you drive or not then it would be a constitutional matter. Nobody in any state HAS to buy car insurance. Driving is not a right, thus not covered by the same protections.
Ok, so mandatory purchase of healthcare is unconstitutional. This I would agree....but in a sense...this is already on the books. we already pay mandatory healthcare. medicare and medicade taxes., essentially we are forced to pay for our future retirement heathcare program. This has stood the constitutional scrutiny...has it not?
Also this still doesn't explain how government ran heathcare would be unconstitutional. mandatory, possibly, but a govt plan...no.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3244565
O well it isn't the point, markups due to business manipulations isn't what has driven up the costs of an xray.
The cost is driven up imo because of the model. I'm gonna make this same argument. The insurance model is a small scale (slightly more efficient) version of a government run single payer system. You have premiums which are taxes, risk spread out over the premium payers or citizens. And an entity insurance company or government that pays out payments for service. The difference is you have thousands of insurances companies vs a single payer.
The result is that the end user doesn't end up paying for services, a 3rd party does. So the end user doesn't care about price (it also helps that the product is very inelastic) so prices don't reflect market rates because no one is pricing anything. And the pricing is preset through negotiations with the companies. so basically you don't have the end user setting the price (where markets do work) but instead you have 2 groups of people, one required to pay the other required to provide the service. Then you have a market failure...
The problem with the bismark system is that it doesn't address the root problem. The end user is not the buyer.
Instead it banks on removing the profits from various entities, which isn't that much anyway...
to bad our politicians cant explain things this well....
http:///forum/post/3244565
O well it isn't the point, markups due to business manipulations isn't what has driven up the costs of an xray.
The cost is driven up imo because of the model. I'm gonna make this same argument. The insurance model is a small scale (slightly more efficient) version of a government run single payer system. You have premiums which are taxes, risk spread out over the premium payers or citizens. And an entity insurance company or government that pays out payments for service. The difference is you have thousands of insurances companies vs a single payer.
The result is that the end user doesn't end up paying for services, a 3rd party does. So the end user doesn't care about price (it also helps that the product is very inelastic) so prices don't reflect market rates because no one is pricing anything. And the pricing is preset through negotiations with the companies. so basically you don't have the end user setting the price (where markets do work) but instead you have 2 groups of people, one required to pay the other required to provide the service. Then you have a market failure...
The problem with the bismark system is that it doesn't address the root problem. The end user is not the buyer.
Instead it banks on removing the profits from various entities, which isn't that much anyway...
to bad our politicians cant explain things this well....
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3244413
Regardless. How is this constitutional and the other one is not.
You stated the intent of the law. You did not defend it under constitutionality (is that a word even)?
Darth (devil's advocate) Tang
In reading the Declaration of Independence and the constitution the only conclusion you can with intellectual honesty reach, is that the governments job is to protect your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I agree with Tocqueville's conclusion that the government is there to provide a framework in which you can operate as a just man with no impedance from the government or from others. The government needs then to step in when as a just man you're harmed and the other man did not act justly. In a more cut and dry sense, you can't steal from someone else. If you do at that point the government (police) step in and try to catch them (might be a bad example).
In that same train of thought, you are driving a car, joe blow is driving a car. He screws up and runs into you. Your car is now damaged beyond repair while you were operating the vehicle correctly. Joe Blow was driving like he stole his car... At this point I see little difference in the results of stealing 20k out of your house, or wrecking your 20k car. Either way Joe Blow has just caused 20k of damage to your wallet.
Thus Joe Blow should be responsible for it. The next question is what mechanism should the government do to ensure your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that has just been dealt a major blow? You could sue him, spend thousands in litigating. Or reach a more efficient conclusion and preempt the problem by requiring people who own cars and drive them on PUBLIC property< the street, to either prove that he has the financial means to rectify any such event, or buy insurance for the other motorists. (this is also address because the states set the insurance requirements not the federal government)
This is vs a government forcing people to buy health insurance, to cover themselves. With little harm done to others if they don't...
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3244593
Ok, so mandatory purchase of healthcare is unconstitutional. This I would agree....but in a sense...this is already on the books. we already pay mandatory healthcare. medicare and medicade taxes., essentially we are forced to pay for our future retirement heathcare program. This has stood the constitutional scrutiny...has it not?
Also this still doesn't explain how government ran heathcare would be unconstitutional. mandatory, possibly, but a govt plan...no.
I can't find where the Constituionality was tested.
I'd say federal medicare and medicaid are unconstiutional too. It took an amendment to get an income tax, yet I am also taxed for the others.
If what I read was true then original SSI passed under FDR was VOLUNTARY. Now it has morphed to MANDATORY without a peep from we the people.
The current bill is mandatory buy some form of insurance ( either private or dear leaders)or pay a penalty. This is on both the personal and business sides of the coin.
Now looking at the senate bill. I believe it works this way:
If I have a business of a certain size I MUST provide private health insurance. If I do not I pay a percentage penalty based on payroll. Now, let's say I have 100 employees and spend $3000/year/employee for insurance. I pay $300,000/ year for insurance. What if my "penalty" for not providing insurance is $250,000? Heck that's easy. Drop private insurance, pay dear leader and pocket $50,000 profit for my company. It's easy. I'm a evil conservative businessman. I fit the mold.
What if this happens all across the country? We just legislated out of business private health insurers through the back door.
http:///forum/post/3244593
Ok, so mandatory purchase of healthcare is unconstitutional. This I would agree....but in a sense...this is already on the books. we already pay mandatory healthcare. medicare and medicade taxes., essentially we are forced to pay for our future retirement heathcare program. This has stood the constitutional scrutiny...has it not?
Also this still doesn't explain how government ran heathcare would be unconstitutional. mandatory, possibly, but a govt plan...no.
I can't find where the Constituionality was tested.
I'd say federal medicare and medicaid are unconstiutional too. It took an amendment to get an income tax, yet I am also taxed for the others.
If what I read was true then original SSI passed under FDR was VOLUNTARY. Now it has morphed to MANDATORY without a peep from we the people.
The current bill is mandatory buy some form of insurance ( either private or dear leaders)or pay a penalty. This is on both the personal and business sides of the coin.
Now looking at the senate bill. I believe it works this way:
If I have a business of a certain size I MUST provide private health insurance. If I do not I pay a percentage penalty based on payroll. Now, let's say I have 100 employees and spend $3000/year/employee for insurance. I pay $300,000/ year for insurance. What if my "penalty" for not providing insurance is $250,000? Heck that's easy. Drop private insurance, pay dear leader and pocket $50,000 profit for my company. It's easy. I'm a evil conservative businessman. I fit the mold.
What if this happens all across the country? We just legislated out of business private health insurers through the back door.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3244543
right now the annual average profit of the private health insurers is 3.3%. I think the term "Amounts to a frog belch in a hurricane" would be appropriate.
Last year the gov't profited 35% from my labors without doing anything or taking any risk.
Where can I find a risk free, effort free 35% profit?!
http:///forum/post/3244543
right now the annual average profit of the private health insurers is 3.3%. I think the term "Amounts to a frog belch in a hurricane" would be appropriate.
Last year the gov't profited 35% from my labors without doing anything or taking any risk.
Where can I find a risk free, effort free 35% profit?!
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3244593
Ok, so mandatory purchase of healthcare is unconstitutional. This I would agree....but in a sense...this is already on the books. we already pay mandatory healthcare. medicare and medicade taxes., essentially we are forced to pay for our future retirement heathcare program. This has stood the constitutional scrutiny...has it not?
Also this still doesn't explain how government ran heathcare would be unconstitutional. mandatory, possibly, but a govt plan...no.
Remember who first proposed social security, a Socialist Candidate for president.
Mandatory participation in social security and medicare is a government program like the military or IRS, we all have to pay for both and "Participate" in the activity under proper circumstances. To say to a citizen you will buy health insurance from a private company is a whole different animal. If the government did take over health care then I believe they would be able to force us into the system.
http:///forum/post/3244593
Ok, so mandatory purchase of healthcare is unconstitutional. This I would agree....but in a sense...this is already on the books. we already pay mandatory healthcare. medicare and medicade taxes., essentially we are forced to pay for our future retirement heathcare program. This has stood the constitutional scrutiny...has it not?
Also this still doesn't explain how government ran heathcare would be unconstitutional. mandatory, possibly, but a govt plan...no.
Remember who first proposed social security, a Socialist Candidate for president.
Mandatory participation in social security and medicare is a government program like the military or IRS, we all have to pay for both and "Participate" in the activity under proper circumstances. To say to a citizen you will buy health insurance from a private company is a whole different animal. If the government did take over health care then I believe they would be able to force us into the system.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3244671
Last year the gov't profited 35% from my labors without doing anything or taking any risk.
Where can I find a risk free, effort free 35% profit?!
I don't necessarily agree that it was risk-less. If it were, we wouldn't have an standing military...
http:///forum/post/3244671
Last year the gov't profited 35% from my labors without doing anything or taking any risk.
Where can I find a risk free, effort free 35% profit?!
I don't necessarily agree that it was risk-less. If it were, we wouldn't have an standing military...