Author Topic: Obamacare = PWNED! (Read 14359 times)

ManBearPig... · « **Reply #76 on:** February 01, 2011, 03:00:00 PM »

Quote from: tbombz on January 31, 2011, 03:47:21 PM

it doesnt cut down costs for the consumer but it makes sure people with pre existing conditions can get coverage, as well as letting people stay on parents plans untill they are 26.

we already pay enough in taxes to cover healthcare, theres no reason why we should have to buy private coverage, we just need a complete overhaul of the current medicare system

shut the fuck up you piece of unemployed shit.

tonymctones · « **Reply #77 on:** February 01, 2011, 03:23:13 PM »

Quote from: War-Horse on February 01, 2011, 01:52:23 PM

You need to screw your braincap on. Where do you get a number like 50%.....you must listen to fox news or some retarded propaganda org.
If you want to complain that 50% dont pay taxes then you should be happy that it will be mandated for ALL to buy a health policy!! You should be supporting this as revenue for the insurance corps will be huge with 30million being added. Arent you a Pro-business guy tony?? And nothing wrong with it being mandated either as you drive a car and must buy auto insurance for the greater good to protect the public and even yourself from yourself......

where the hell you been? this must be your gimmick account...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/47-Percent-Dont-Pay-Taxes-No-Big-Deal-3230
47% of americans pay no federal income tax...

they wont pay for this either even if there is a mandate, perhaps you havent heard of the millions of waivers obama has given out for ppl to opt out? the tax credits for those who cant pay? tax payers still get the shaft

LOL nice try on the auto insurance theory but its full of holes in LOADED WITH IGNORANCE...

first off you CHOOSE to buy auto insurance because you CHOOSE to drive. You have the option of not buying auto insurance if you do not want to drive...

this law mandates you must regardless of whether you choose to or not buy a private product or face a fine...

the govt can regulate action to protect the greater good, but it cannot regulate inaction...

by this logic it could also mandate that we not eat fried food, b/c it is for the greater good.

by this logic it could mandate that smoking is illegal, b/c it is for the greater good.

by this logic it could mandate that salt is illegal, b/c it is for the greater good...

again ignorance and full of holes

but good to see you posting again

tonymctones · « **Reply #78 on:** February 01, 2011, 03:28:34 PM »

Quote from: Vince G, CSN MFT on February 01, 2011, 02:27:23 PM

By locking them up for tax exasion.

Personally, the previous health care system was fucked up, the current one is still fucked up, and I don't think it will get any better whichever way it goes. I'm going out for a sandwich

they didnt evade anything, thats the way they tax system works...

the top 1% that everyone bitches about giving tax breaks to is responsible for 40% of revenue from income tax...

you guys really need to educate yourselves

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html

As for taxes, CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes, including:
•38.8 percent of federal individual income taxes

•4.0 percent of federal social insurance taxes (Social Security and Medicare)

•58.6 percent of corporate income taxes (indirectly, through stock ownership)

•5.5 percent of federal excise taxes (on such things as gasoline, tobacco, alcoholic beverages and telephones.)
The share of taxes paid by different income levels have changed over time.

I bet you guys didnt know that the bush tax cuts actually moved MORE of the tax burden to the top 1% did you?

tonymctones · « **Reply #79 on:** February 01, 2011, 03:32:44 PM »

from the messiahs own words...

Quote from: 333386 on January 31, 2011, 07:38:48 PM

From the Washington Times

"Judge uses Obama’s words against him

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

Rami · « **Reply #80 on:** February 01, 2011, 04:10:26 PM »

Quote from: Nails on February 01, 2011, 02:30:01 PM

in a free world you dress comfortably and legal, ( and in a way that piss off ignorant conservatives and trend sensitive people the most )

delta9mda · « **Reply #81 on:** February 01, 2011, 11:05:36 PM »

Quote from: BlackFlagRedStar on January 31, 2011, 07:24:30 PM

The health care system in the US is so fucked up.

In just about every other country I can think of, the people get health insurance FOR FREE.

This whole concept of making people pay for health insurance and privatizing the health care industry is just wrong.

I can't believe conservatives in the USA have let themselves be brainwashd into supporting the deeply corrupt privatized health insurers.

it aint free dickhead if you are paying 40% tax (or more)

tonymctones · « **Reply #82 on:** February 02, 2011, 07:12:00 AM »

Quote from: delta9mda on February 01, 2011, 11:05:36 PM

it aint free dickhead if you are paying 40% tax (or more)

exactly...

tonymctones · « **Reply #83 on:** February 02, 2011, 07:14:03 AM »

More from obama before he flip flopped on the mandate

Obama to DeGeneres on Why He Opposed Individual Mandate: Forcing Uninsured to Buy Insurance Is Like Forcing Homeless to Buy Homes
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
By Eric Scheiner

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-judge-cites-quotes-president-rul

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden react to cheers as they arrive in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, for the signing ceremony for the health care bill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(CNSNews.com) - Long before his administration went into federal court to fight 27 states that are now challenging the constitutionality of the federal government forcing people to buy health insurance, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama told Ellen DeGeneres that—unlike his opponent Hillary Clinton—he opposed forcing the uninsured to buy health insurance, saying that it would be like forcing the homeless to buy homes.

“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008 appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' television show. “So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

Looks like he went the complete and opposite way by not focusing at all on driving down costs and mandating ppl still buy insurance

hope and change bitches

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #84 on:** February 02, 2011, 08:18:12 AM »

Obama was AGAINST the mandate before he was for it.

HOPE & CHANGE ASSHOLES!

SilverSpoon · « **Reply #85 on:** February 02, 2011, 08:43:33 AM »

Just addressing the statement that no judge can overturn a law.
A judge most certainly has the power to deem a law, or a portion thereof, unconstitutional.
What do you think this does to the law, once it is deemed unconstitutional by the Highest Court?
What if the lower court's decision went unappealed?
For most that haven't read the opinion, I suggest you do, as the "mandate" clearly violates Interstate Commerce clauses.
How can a government force you to purchase something that you don't desire?

tonymctones · « **Reply #86 on:** February 02, 2011, 02:56:22 PM »

Quote from: SilverSpoon on February 02, 2011, 08:43:33 AM

Just addressing the statement that no judge can overturn a law.
A judge most certainly has the power to deem a law, or a portion thereof, unconstitutional.
What do you think this does to the law, once it is deemed unconstitutional by the Highest Court?
What if the lower court's decision went unappealed?
For most that haven't read the opinion, I suggest you do, as the "mandate" clearly violates Interstate Commerce clauses.
How can a government force you to purchase something that you don't desire?

the supreme court declaring a law unconstitutional is overturning it...

It depends on what the supreme court decides one court has said just the mandate is unconstitutional this judge said the entire law is...

iono what really happens hopefully they keep the good aspects of the bill and add in the parts that for some reason got left out like allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and tort reform.

tonymctones · « **Reply #87 on:** February 02, 2011, 03:00:47 PM »

I think it will be interesting to see how sotomayor and kagen vote on this

hopefully this will show ppl that electing ppl with idealogy that is to far to the left or right can have horrible consequences

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #88 on:** February 03, 2011, 05:44:34 AM »

Quote from: tonymctones on February 02, 2011, 03:00:47 PM

I think it will be interesting to see how sotomayor and kagen vote on this

hopefully this will show ppl that electing ppl with idealogy that is to far to the left or right can have horrible consequences

Kagan is already on record as saying the govt can order people to eat broccoli and certain types of food, sowe all know how that far let hag is going on this.

War-Horse · « **Reply #89 on:** February 03, 2011, 11:18:43 AM »

Tonymc: That article says they OWE NO federal tax. The reason is they paid it up front thru the year as did all americans who make over $3750 and over the minimum filing requirement. Also this survey is skewed as it counts toward overall population in U.S.....keep in mind that out of 260milion people a large chunk are newborns and kids to 18yrs old not yet working.

Another point is that YES gov,t and state can enforce inaction....its called tickets, fines, confiscating refunds, jail......same thing with auto insurance.
On your point of driving is a choice. Yes it is but guess what? Anyone can have an appendix, liver ,kidneys heart, go out at anytime therefore we need a way to keep these people from running into emergency rooms and racking up 10k in bills and having us stuck with it.
I would think as a conservative type that you are you would endorse the HUGE amount of revenue this will create for the insurance companies and relieve the tax burden on individuals.

The same arguments were made for social security and it actually runs a profit ........(yes the govt has borrowed against it but thats another subject)

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #90 on:** February 03, 2011, 11:21:33 AM »

SS is in the red already.

www.usdebtclock.org

War-Horse · « **Reply #91 on:** February 03, 2011, 11:38:52 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on February 03, 2011, 11:21:33 AM

SS is in the red already.

www.usdebtclock.org

It is solvent and is fine. Estimates are that in 2037 the input and output may put us into red. www.ssa.gov

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #92 on:** February 03, 2011, 11:39:40 AM »

Quote from: War-Horse on February 03, 2011, 11:38:52 AM

Do you even read anything? Madoff told his investors everything was fine too.

War-Horse · « **Reply #93 on:** February 03, 2011, 12:01:06 PM »

SSA took in 49billion in payroll taxes and 131billion in interest in 2008 ABOVE what it paid out. And has a surplus of 3.2 trillion dollars.

But it is setup for problems in 2037. The way to fix that is to raise the income cap on high wage earners. Right now they only pay to 108,000 dollars. Raise it a little and its solved.

Republicans have been running this scare tactic for 30 yrs.....bunch of drama queens they are.

BTW I work in the retirement industry.

tonymctones · « **Reply #94 on:** February 03, 2011, 12:59:05 PM »

Quote from: War-Horse on February 03, 2011, 11:18:43 AM

Tonymc: That article says they OWE NO federal tax. The reason is they paid it up front thru the year as did all americans who make over $3750 and over the minimum filing requirement. Also this survey is skewed as it counts toward overall population in U.S.....keep in mind that out of 260milion people a large chunk are newborns and kids to 18yrs old not yet working.

Another point is that YES gov,t and state can enforce inaction....its called tickets, fines, confiscating refunds, jail......same thing with auto insurance.
On your point of driving is a choice. Yes it is but guess what? Anyone can have an appendix, liver ,kidneys heart, go out at anytime therefore we need a way to keep these people from running into emergency rooms and racking up 10k in bills and having us stuck with it.
I would think as a conservative type that you are you would endorse the HUGE amount of revenue this will create for the insurance companies and relieve the tax burden on individuals.

The same arguments were made for social security and it actually runs a profit ........(yes the govt has borrowed against it but thats another subject)

goodness gracious, how can ppl that are so uninformed actually form opinions on this shit?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

auto insurance IS A CHOICE YOU DUMB ASS!!!!!!!!

you CHOOSE TO DRIVE...

where is the choice in obamacares mandate?

James · « **Reply #95 on:** February 03, 2011, 01:09:39 PM »

Quote from: War-Horse on February 03, 2011, 11:18:43 AM

Tonymc: That article says they OWE NO federal tax. The reason is they paid it up front thru the year as did all americans who make over $3750 and over the minimum filing requirement. Also this survey is skewed as it counts toward overall population in U.S.....keep in mind that out of 260milion people a large chunk are newborns and kids to 18yrs old not yet working.

Another point is that YES gov,t and state can enforce inaction....its called tickets, fines, confiscating refunds, jail......same thing with auto insurance.
On your point of driving is a choice. Yes it is but guess what? Anyone can have an appendix, liver ,kidneys heart, go out at anytime therefore we need a way to keep these people from running into emergency rooms and racking up 10k in bills and having us stuck with it.
I would think as a conservative type that you are you would endorse the HUGE amount of revenue this will create for the insurance companies and relieve the tax burden on individuals.

The same arguments were made for social security and it actually runs a profit ........(yes the govt has borrowed against it but thats another subject)

Sorry, but you are flat wrong, as the article is not basing the reasoning for 47% not owing taxes because they "already paid it up", it is basing it on that fact that 47% either don't pay in, or if they have "paid it up, then they get it they get it back though refundable tax credits.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001289_who_pays.pdf

James · « **Reply #96 on:** February 03, 2011, 01:12:05 PM »

Quote from: War-Horse on February 03, 2011, 12:01:06 PM

SSA took in 49billion in payroll taxes and 131billion in interest in 2008 ABOVE what it paid out. And has a surplus of 3.2 trillion dollars.

But it is setup for problems in 2037. The way to fix that is to raise the income cap on high wage earners. Right now they only pay to 108,000 dollars. Raise it a little and its solved.

Republicans have been running this scare tactic for 30 yrs.....bunch of drama queens they are.

BTW I work in the retirement industry.

Hopefully you understand the retirement industry better than you do our Tax System...

tonymctones · « **Reply #97 on:** February 03, 2011, 01:14:35 PM »

Quote from: James on February 03, 2011, 01:12:05 PM

Hopefully you understand the retirement industry better than you do our tax System...

LOL no shit

tonymctones · « **Reply #98 on:** February 03, 2011, 01:19:59 PM »

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

James · « **Reply #99 on:** February 03, 2011, 03:18:09 PM »

Quote from: War-Horse on February 03, 2011, 11:18:43 AM

The same arguments were made for social security and it actually runs a profit ........(yes the govt has borrowed against it but thats another subject)

Wrong again dummy:

Social Security: More going out than coming in
http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/news/economy/social_security_trustees_report/index.htm

Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year

"This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html