Originally Posted by Weave

Your point????
The argument isnt about contraception or sin, its about the government telling a religion it has to violate its beliefs.
It will be challenged if Obamacare isnt already overturned by the Supreme Court this summer because of other unconstitutional measures it demands.

Every year starting with the first taxation in the US, Quakers and other pacifists have been expected to pay their taxes, even though a large part of the take goes to financially support a military they don't support by religous bent. In many of those years, the ir money funded wars. Should they be allowed to forego paying that share of their taxes that fund the military?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I'm not feeling your pain here. It seems reasonable.

Well, it SHOULD pretty much kill the myth of Americans paying low taxes but it is already being spun that everyone under $44k will get assistance. Maybe it wouldn't be so bothersome if the safety net wasn't stored in first class, but now we're talking about median wage people paying 40% gross - while still having shit schools, dirty water, a lack of public transportation AND another 10% liability if they actually get sick. For some salt in the wound, just remember Romney paying 15% in capital gains... lol.

Set aside 25% for housing, and I'm looking for a median home value target around $100,000. Of course, after food & transport there isn't any good news left over for the consumer spending market either.

It is workable, but I find it hard to believe that this half-assed reform plan will suddenly become popular when a bunch of southerners are forced to buy an expensive insurance plan that still comes with significant out of pocket costs.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I'm not feeling your pain here. It seems reasonable.

50% total bite out of nominal income? For a guy making 40k nominal a year?

Oh yeah totally reasonable... Figure rent runs 500 bucks a month (because you're single, so why not live in a shithole far away from conveniences, right? that's reasonable). Take the bus -- another two hours a day to your commute, but that's reasonable -- and utilities and you're down to 9 grand for groceries and everything else for the year.

A reasonable person could make do with that, to be sure. It's reasonable... but is it right??

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Do you really think all the folks who are out there driving foreign cars really care about the life of GM?

As a poll of one:

1. I care, even though GM is my least favorite car company.
2. I also drive European cars because I like they way they handle.
3. I may start buying Fords, now that they're selling world cars.
4. I doubt I will buy from GM, ever.
5. I'm still glad they're here.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

50% total bite out of nominal income? For a guy making 40k nominal a year?

Oh yeah totally reasonable... Figure rent runs 500 bucks a month (because you're single, so why not live in a shithole far away from conveniences, right? that's reasonable). Take the bus -- another two hours a day to your commute, but that's reasonable -- and utilities and you're down to 9 grand for groceries and everything else for the year.

A reasonable person could make do with that, to be sure. It's reasonable... but is it right??

All this while some Democrats on the board are trying to spin it like middle Americans are net welfare beneficiaries (first the EITC article, now the subsidy claims)! I'm feeling more like a cash cow, tied down by the IRS on to the altar of (some) corporate profits.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I decided to go check out the subsidy calculator they're using... and surprise, surprise! While a family of four can get $10k in subsidies at a 40k income, a single person at the same income is supposed to pay 10% of their gross wage on insurance, and up to another 10% on out of pocket costs. Add that to a 25-30% total tax rate ... ugh.

Yep, insurance is expensive and medical care is outrageously expensive. You've hit the not-so-sweet spot of having enough income not to get subsidize but not enough income to live comfortable with life's costs.

Your penalty for not taking the insurance would be 1% of 40K or $400 and if you can show financial hardship that would go away. You could pay the $400 and then still be eligible to get the insurance if in that year you were diagnose with cancer or had an accident and faced with 10's, if not 100s, of thousands of dollars. Essentially, you would have catastrophic health insurance for an annual premium of $400.

The other possibility is that the SCOTUS drops the mandate but keeps the rest of Obamacare. Under that, you would not have to pay the $400 penalty. However, if you get the cancer or have the accident, you would have to wait 2 years to get the coverage under what I believe will be the legislated alternative to the mandate to deal with "free-riders." Let's just hope your illness or accident isn't so bad that it kills you during the 2 year wait - although this may have been Darwin's plan all along.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Every year starting with the first taxation in the US, Quakers and other pacifists have been expected to pay their taxes, even though a large part of the take goes to financially support a military they don't support by religous bent. In many of those years, the ir money funded wars. Should they be allowed to forego paying that share of their taxes that fund the military?

I asked a similar question back in the thread and never got an answer.

This is from one of Obama's most ardent supporters. From

Will Israel Attack Iran? Not Before the U.S. Presidential Election

For Brazilians or Americans who do not follow this issue closely, a process of mass brainwashing is taking place through the major media. Iran, which even the U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has acknowledged is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, is portrayed as hell-bent on getting one. And why? So they can nuke Israel and become the first nation on Earth to commit mass suicide, since Israel has enough nuclear weapons to kill every Iranian several times over. It all makes sense, if you assume that mass suicide is Iran’s deepest national aspiration.

However, most experts believe that Iran is seeking not nuclear weapons, but the capacity to produce them. This is a capacity shared by Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and other countries with civilian nuclear reactors – whocould produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. Iran, like these other countries – and unlike Israel – is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and will remain so even if it develops such a capacity.

Back to the U.S.: The good news is that Israel will not attack Iran before the U.S. presidential election. Many people see Obama as a pushover – he got rolled by his generals in Afghanistan, by Wall Street on financial reform, etc. But woe unto him who tries to mess with Obama’s re-election. He will crush them. And a war with Iran – no matter who starts it -- is much too risky for an election year. It’s a safe bet that Obama reminded the Israelis who is boss, and who gives billions of dollars annually to whom.

Snip

The bad news is that the Obama Administration, with help from the major media, is still preparing the groundwork for a possible war with Iran in the future – just as President Bill Clinton paved the way for his successor to invade Iraq. Members of Congress, pushed strongly by the lobby-group AIPAC and neo-conservatives, are also attempting to make war inevitable by making diplomacy impossible. And that is a war that the world needs to prevent.

More: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds...ntial-election

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

As a poll of one:

1. I care, even though GM is my least favorite car company.
2. I also drive European cars because I like they way they handle.
3. I may start buying Fords, now that they're selling world cars.
4. I doubt I will buy from GM, ever.
5. I'm still glad they're here.

I'm glad that these American workers still have their good-paying jobs. Also the workers in the parts plants, and the workers in the bars and restaurants and stores that serve the factory employees. The President made the right call here.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

50% total bite out of nominal income? For a guy making 40k nominal a year?

Oh yeah totally reasonable... Figure rent runs 500 bucks a month (because you're single, so why not live in a shithole far away from conveniences, right? that's reasonable). Take the bus -- another two hours a day to your commute, but that's reasonable -- and utilities and you're down to 9 grand for groceries and everything else for the year.

A reasonable person could make do with that, to be sure. It's reasonable... but is it right??

Let's not conflate the different issues of taxes and Obamacare.

The mistake that people make in looking at the mandate is that its a penalty. As I noted in my response back to John, it is actually a de facto annual premium for catastrophic health care coverage - paying the "penalty" allows one to still be eligible for insurance should some unforeseen medical event befall you. In the case of John we are talking a little more than a dollar a day for something that could both save your life and keep you from becoming bankrupt. You can check around but I don't think the private sector offers that today at that cost.

Now I realize that the alternative to the mandate for the problem of "free riders" is the temporary ineligibility. I realize how that would be more appealing to the Social Darwinian wanting to advance the human gene pool - i.e, weed out those too dumb to have health insurance when the govt has bent over backwards to try to get it to you. But hey, the SCOTUS might still get you your wish.

Originally Posted by playwrite

However, if you get the cancer or have the accident, you would have to wait 2 years to get the coverage under what I believe will be the legislated alternative to the mandate to deal with "free-riders." Let's just hope your illness or accident isn't so bad that it kills you during the 2 year wait - although this may have been Darwin's plan all along.

Sounds like a good argument for catastrophic insurance, but those plans won't be acceptable any more in 2014! So everyone has to pay for the plans that subsidize non-essential trips to the doctor and the insurance company is guaranteed to keep 20 or 25% of that for overhead and profit.

What a bad, bad joke.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

All this while some Democrats on the board are trying to spin it like middle Americans are net welfare beneficiaries (first the EITC article, now the subsidy claims)! I'm feeling more like a cash cow, tied down by the IRS on to the altar of (some) corporate profits.

Ah, no one's tax rates have gone up for around two decades (unless, of course, you're earning more money put you in a higher tax rate); in fact, most people are paying less taxes than ever. And during that time, we've had wars, bail-outs, stimulus, health care, etc etc.

Bottom line, your taxes aren't paying for anything. Taxes are a tool to (1) get us to use the Nation's currency and (2) to stabilize prices.

I am in complete agreement with anyone who believes we need to cut federal taxes right now. I'm also in agreement with those that understand cutting taxes on corporations or the top 1 or 2% of household isn't going to do squat for the economy.

I am in total disagreement with anyone who thinks that cutting federal taxes means we have to cut federal spending. We need more federal deficit spending right now (Obama got enough for good employment reports this summer and his election in the Fall, but not enough for 2013 and on).

As long as people don't understand the true nature and purpose of federal taxes and spending, we will remain in stupefying shouting matches about nonsense tradeoffs between the two as well as the moronic "OMG, the deficit is bigger and we're all going to die!" sloganeering.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Sounds like a good argument for catastrophic insurance, but those plans won't be acceptable any more in 2014! So everyone has to pay for the plans that subsidize non-essential trips to the doctor and the insurance company is guaranteed to keep 20 or 25% of that for overhead and profit.

What a bad, bad joke.

You're misunderstanding.

By having the mandate, the current Obamacare takes care of the "free rider" in a way that allows someone who decided to not get the full insurance (but just pay the "penalty") to later still be able to buy the full insurance if needed. And since the insurance companies can't lock you out because of your now new pre-condition (the newly-found cancer or accident injuries that make you now want the insurance), then what you have is de facto catastrophic insurance. Also note, you could buy into the Platinum Level plan that covers 90% of the 100s of thousands of dollars its going to cost to deal with your new cancer or injuries.

Maybe there's some sort of social stigma from paying the "penalty," but as people figure this out, you would be darn stupid to not take advantage of it (note - at some level of income, above the subsidies, it does make sense to get the full insurance particularly if you have a family).

Given all the shouting and bullshti about the mandate that's out there, I'm not sure most people will figure this out before the SCOTUS decision, but it they did, there would be a firestorm against those who made this benefit vulnerable to being taken away. If it does remain, over time as more and more people figure it out and take advantage, its going to be just another reason for folks to scratch their heads and wonder whether the GOP is just plain stupid or just don't care about people.

It's pretty amazing what you can learn when you decide to put all the shouting and bullshit to the side.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yep, insurance is expensive and medical care is outrageously expensive.

No, they're not. At least not under systems that allow them to be reasonably-priced and widely-available.

You (plural, naturally), buying into the myth that insurance and medical care are expensive, have already ceded the only important part of the fight.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'm glad that these American workers still have their good-paying jobs. Also the workers in the parts plants, and the workers in the bars and restaurants and stores that serve the factory employees. The President made the right call here.

In a bankruptcy, the factories and workers don't disappear, you know. The company just gets restructut=red. Most of the people who loose their jobs are management and overhaead.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You're misunderstanding.

By having the mandate, the current Obamacare takes care of the "free rider" in a way that allows someone who decided to not get the full insurance (but just pay the "penalty") to later still be able to buy the full insurance if needed. And since the insurance companies can't lock you out because of your now new pre-condition (the newly-found cancer or accident injuries that make you now want the insurance), then what you have is de facto catastrophic insurance. Also note, you could buy into the Platinum Level plan that covers 90% of the 100s of thousands of dollars its going to cost to deal with your new cancer or injuries.

Maybe there's some sort of social stigma from paying the "penalty," but as people figure this out, you would be darn stupid to not take advantage of it (note - at some level of income, above the subsidies, it does make sense to get the full insurance particularly if you have a family).

Given all the shouting and bullshti about the mandate that's out there, I'm not sure most people will figure this out before the SCOTUS decision, but it they did, there would be a firestorm against those who made this benefit vulnerable to being taken away. If it does remain, over time as more and more people figure it out and take advantage, its going to be just another reason for folks to scratch their heads and wonder whether the GOP is just plain stupid or just don't care about people.

It's pretty amazing what you can learn when you decide to put all the shouting and bullshit to the side.

Well, I am confused about this "catastrophic" protection penalty you claim, because this is probably the first I've heard of it. Yeah, an uninsured person can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, but that can still be factored in to their premiums. So that is a lot different than a catastrophic plan that limits your annual liability. What if someone has no insurance but pays the penalty, will they have some cap on their liability?

From what I know, the latest round of reform gives us something like the Swiss system - except with higher premiums, lower subsidies, higher out of pocket costs, and more gaps in coverage. Oh yeah... and much, much higher profitability for insurers. That might be preferable to the U.S. status quo of the last two decades, but that doesn't necessarily make it "good" by any other relative measures.

There are some other interesting points you bring up, but I'll have to get back to that when I've got another free minute..

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well, I am confused about this "catastrophic" protection penalty you claim, because this is probably the first I've heard of it. Yeah, an uninsured person can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, but that can still be factored in to their premiums. So that is a lot different than a catastrophic plan that limits your annual liability. What if someone has no insurance but pays the penalty, will they have some cap on their liability?

From what I know, the latest round of reform gives us something like the Swiss system - except with higher premiums, lower subsidies, higher out of pocket costs, and more gaps in coverage. Oh yeah... and much, much higher profitability for insurers. That might be preferable to the U.S. status quo of the last two decades, but that doesn't necessarily make it "good" by any other relative measures.

There are some other interesting points you bring up, but I'll have to get back to that when I've got another free minute..

The key point is that if you pay the penalty, you maintain the right to buy the exact same insurance that someone got from the get-go (or, more acturately, you have the same five choices of levels of insurance).

My understanding regarding all health insurance plans offered (from Bronze to Platinum) is that insurers are prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays.

It's a pretty sweet deal if one looks at it from that perspective of the mandate not being a penalty but being a de facto premium for catastrophic insurance.

I realize most people won't look at it that way, and in large part, because many of them can't stomach having the govt make them pay the "premium." But that is a lot like the law against running red lights - yes, most people are smart enough not to do that; but when it happens, it's likely to harm more than just themselves. This is the "free rider" harm that the insurance companies required to go away in order for them to give up pre-condition exclusions.

Just to note, as I've said elsewhere, I'm a single-payor believer and wish all of this insurance company baloney would just all go away. But that's not going to happen any more than my getting a date with Rani. So I man-up and carry-on regardless of both those devastating disappointments.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

No, they're not. At least not under systems that allow them to be reasonably-priced and widely-available.

You (plural, naturally), buying into the myth that insurance and medical care are expensive, have already ceded the only important part of the fight.

You're correct, I should have said here in the USofA.

However, what we got with Obamacare is what we got. People who think we could have gotten more (e.g. single payer) in the political environment that was simply have no clue with what's going on in the country.

People who think we can now get more in the political environment of today are simply insane.

We'll see about tomorrow. however.

NOTE TO JUSTIN - this is very very cool -

http://singularityhub.com/2012/02/06...s-jaw-implant/

Another First For 3D Printing – Woman Receives Jaw Implant

- damn, that's just not paper mache any more!

Originally Posted by playwrite

People who think we could have gotten more (e.g. single payer) in the political environment that was simply have no clue with what's going on in the country.

People who think we can now get more in the political environment of today are simply insane.

OK, first of all, no one likes single-payer. Not even the countries that have something like it. The only exception to this rule seems to be some American baby boomers who can't think beyond rigid ideals.

Secondly, if having the world's most expensive healthcare - after contentious reform! - is the best any sane person can expect from American politics, it is probably time for the sane people to give up on America's dreams of recovery.

In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...to understand the difference between providing something normally considered a normal fringe benefit and what someone purchases legally with pay that is ultimately one's own, or rights of an employee off the job, or even the authority of the Catholic Church. ....

One problem with health care insurance is that what started as a 'fringe benefit' is now a necessity ( unless one is very wealthy) . I have thought for a long time that depending on employer based health insurance is a mistake, and we would be better off to end this practice. Although I don't like the idea of too much Government direction, it might be better for churches to get out of all non-church businesses.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

OK, first of all, no one likes single-payer. Not even the countries that have something like it. The only exception to this rule seems to be some American baby boomers who can't think beyond rigid ideals.

Secondly, if having the world's most expensive healthcare - after contentious reform! - is the best any sane person can expect from American politics, it is probably time for the sane people to give up on America's dreams of recovery.

One can take your Boomer comment in two ways - Boomers are just a certain way that is conducive to supporting big govt programs or Boomers are old enough now where a lot of them are on Medicare and people on Medicare basically like it – including even t-party people who carry signs demanding the socialist govt keep its evil hands off of it!

Either way, I'm not totally unsympathetic to the inefficiencies in large govt programs (you do know that the Founding Fathers very purposefully planned for that inefficiency, God bless them).

Hell, I don't have all the answers, I just often pretend to - it comes with my occupation.

I do know that people who are doing well financially have a better chance of kicking the crap out of nasty bureaucrats whether in govt or large insurance companies. That’s one of the reasons why getting the economy functioning better for EVERYONE is my political priority.

Originally Posted by playwrite

One can take your Boomer comment in two ways - Boomers are just a certain way that is conducive to supporting big govt programs or Boomers are old enough now where a lot of them are on Medicare and people on Medicare basically like it – including even t-party people who carry signs demanding the socialist govt keep its evil hands off of it!

I didn't see it either of those ways. Right-wing boomers are so far to the other extreme that the first premise can't be true, and the second premise fails because Medicare isn't single-payer in the context of increasingly popular private supplements. Medicare for all, with private options available to those who want them, isn't single-payer.

So the debate has been framed like this:

Left = Socialized, single-payer
Center = Romneycare, locking in corporate insurance profits
Right = Survival of the fittest, suffering for the rest

The extremes presented to us within the "mainstream" confines are immediately dismissable. They are not politically viable, and few people would actually prefer those extremes outside of the idealist generation.

However, just because the debate has been framed and constrained like this, doesn't mean that the remaining option we've been presented with is any form of improvement. While it puts some limits on private insurers' behaviors, it also codifies and guarantees a level of profitability and influence that is unheard of in other modern societies.

This November, we'll be presented with our final choice on the matter: We can vote for the "centrist" option and call it Obamacare, or we can vote for the "centrist" option and call it Romneycare. It is the same damn shield for the insurance companies either way, and regardless of how we deal with the utterly trivial details and manufactured controversies like birth control.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I didn't see it either of those ways. Right-wing boomers are so far to the other extreme that the first premise can't be true, and the second premise fails because Medicare isn't single-payer in the context of increasingly popular private supplements. Medicare for all, with private options available to those who want them, isn't single-payer.

So the debate has been framed like this:

Left = Socialized, single-payer
Center = Romneycare, locking in corporate insurance profits
Right = Survival of the fittest, suffering for the rest

The extremes presented to us within the "mainstream" confines are immediately dismissable. They are not politically viable, and few people would actually prefer those extremes outside of the idealist generation.

However, just because the debate has been framed and constrained like this, doesn't mean that the remaining option we've been presented with is any form of improvement. While it puts some limits on private insurers' behaviors, it also codifies and guarantees a level of profitability and influence that is unheard of in other modern societies.

This November, we'll be presented with our final choice on the matter: We can vote for the "centrist" option and call it Obamacare, or we can vote for the "centrist" option and call it Romneycare. It is the same damn shield for the insurance companies either way, and regardless of how we deal with the utterly trivial details and manufactured controversies like birth control.

I hate the insurance companies for what they have become, but I'm not necessariy against corporatons making a profit. I'm pretty sure we would not have the benefits of the modern world without the limited liability innovation of incorporating - its how our damn railroads got built. That's not to excuse what they have become, however. And certainly not an excuse to fight the bastards in every way one can.

However, it is what it is; and it ain't gonna change much that central zone you've laid out. So, while I can generally agree with you, I think there's lot more that can be done within that central part of your framework. The only alternative to that is ineffective bitching. I'm not shy of bitching, mind you, but want to be in the park playing the game than standing out in the parking lot bitchin to other bitchers - (hmm, I might be over doing that ).

Again, I generally agree with you and you have depressed me enough that I might just add another Guinness to the nightly routine (actually, I beefing up for Saint Patty's day!).

Originally Posted by Weave

59% of Catholics disagree with your idea of what the issue is.....

You can rest assured that whoever the Republican candidate is, they will remind voters of how the Obama regime has been trampling on religious freedoms....

.
99% of all Americans use birth control.
If you guys really think trying to revive the culture war is a winner, well go right ahead.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, there's a simpler answer to that question, although it requires some twisting, since the government makes no attempt to force anyone to sell alcohol. But let's pretend for the moment that it did; that there was a local ordinance somewhere that required certain types of restaurants to serve wine. And let's suppose that a Baptist church (or for that matter a mosque) wanted to open a restaurant of the type required to serve wine. The answer in that case would be yes. The government cannot require the church or the mosque to serve wine as part of its religious service (the Baptist church of course does not), but there's a distinction between the church itself and a restaurant owned by the church.

Same reasoning applies with the Catholic Church and contraceptive coverage. Within the Church proper itself, no -- First Amendment says the government can't say boo about that. But a hospital or school that is merely owned by the Church? Different story.

Yes. The other day I heard this analogy.
Jehoviahs Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions.
Now, suppose that you get your health insurance from an employer who is a Jehovah's Witness.
Now, suppose that you need a blood transfusion.
Should your employer be allowed to deny you coverage on religious grounds.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Great comment here on Romney's renewed attack on the auto bailout, which was a piece of pure Republican propaganda garbage. I honestly don't think he'll be nominated. It will be Santorum or a dark horse.

Both Romney and Santorum are fatally flawed candidates. Mitt is a gaffe machine and once the average American finds out that Santorum opposes all birth control, well.

If the economy does not totally tank in the next 8 months I'm not worried about Obama's reelection.
Will he have coattails on election night may prove to be the bigger question.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Back to the U.S.: [B]The good news is that Israel will not attack Iran before the U.S. presidential election. Many people see Obama as a pushover – he got rolled by his generals in Afghanistan, by Wall Street on financial reform, etc. But woe unto him who tries to mess with Obama’s re-election. He will crush them. And a war with Iran – no matter who starts it -- is much too risky for an election year. It’s a safe bet that Obama reminded the Israelis who is boss, and who gives billions of dollars annually to whom.

Unfortunately, I think Obama and almost any Democratic Party politician (or even Republican) is also a pushover on Israel, given the strength of the pro-Israeli lobby and the Jewish vote in Florida and New York. Cutting off aid does not seem to be an option, especially in an election year. I hope Israel doesn't strike, but it is possible in April/May of this year, or in or near November next year. We are entering a dangerous few months, acc. to my crystal ball. It may turn out to be involvement in Syria this year, though.

The bad news is that the Obama Administration, with help from the major media, is still preparing the groundwork for a possible war with Iran in the future

All in all, I think (just looking at things through my crystal ball) that the next major involvement after 2012-13 is likely to be 2025, and that looks more likely to be domestic, or with neighbors. So the good news is that war is unlikely if we make it through next year, and even then, what happens this year or next is unlikely to be a major war. Instead, I see diplomatic breakthroughs likely next Summer.