Far fetched fantasy story (4 Viewers)

[The_Doc_Man]

you are actually making it worthless.

You mean it isn't already?

 

[Minty]

I wish I had some money to hoard... Can someone point me to a supply?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Well, if you listen to GOP rhetoric, all you need to do to become one of the richest 1% is go on Welfare.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothy, just to be clear about this...

The complaint above:

Now if you want to find corrupt politicians trying to ram health care reform through before people can find out what's in it, you need look no further than the Republican Party of America

And HOW long was it before we discovered that convicted felon (bank fraud) Robert Creamer wrote about 628 pages of the A.C.A. that the Dems and Obama ram-rodded through everyone? The same Robert Creamer whose book talks about the "democritization of wealth" - which is a euphemism for socialist economy.

Then there was Jonathan Gruber, who admitted that the law was designed to fool the public. Gruber “said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting ObamaCare passed, and that it was written in such a way as to take advantage of ‘the stupidity of the American voter,’”

Here's a longer quote from Gruber, which I'm repeating from the article.

This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. So it’s written to do that.

In terms of risk-rated subsidies, in a law that said health people are gonna pay in — if it made explicit that healthy people are gonna pay in, sick people get money, it would not have passed. Okay — just like the … people — transperen— lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get anything to pass.

( http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/did-the-author-of-obamacare-admit-its-evil.html ).

So, Frothy, I feel compelled to point out that your complaint is merely a case of the pot and the kettle. We already know that politics is dirty and congressional politics is as black as midnight in a deep cave. So if one side calls the other black? Hell, we already knew that.

Just keep it in perspective, Frothy, and understand that you aren't the only person who sometimes feels betrayed by the government.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You had better check your sources again. The only book written by Robert Creamer the politician is Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, which is an argument for how Democrats need to adjust their positions, written before the 2008 POTUS campaigns even began.

There is literally zero that I can find on that book that involves democratization of wealth or socialism at all. I'll add it to my 'to read' list to see if it was somehow ignored by the dozens of reviewers whose reviews I just read, however.

As to his connection to the ACA, the only arguments to that effect that I can find are Breitbart, TheBlueMarble.com, and ConservativeByte.com, all making the same argument that he wrote the entire thing during his five months in prison in 2005. As those are all EXTREMELY biased right-wing sites well-known for making up 'fake news', to the point that they make Fox actually appear fair and balanced, I can't say that those sites or their articles are anything that a would-be educated conservative voter should be listening to, any more than you would see me quoting DailyKOS and the Huffington Post.

As to Gruber, while I cannot argue what he said, I feel constrained to point out that not only did he write most of RomneyCare, which conservatives lauded as the ideal for health insurance legislation, but his description is honestly an honest, if blunt, description of nearly every law that gets made. The New York Times has an interesting discussion of the controversy HERE.

Essentially, Congress is obsessed with the government equivalent of financial accounting standards (with the C.B.O. as the rule maker) instead of cost accounting. It structures the laws in ways that might not be very efficient but sound good on the stump. Mr. Gruber was, in an infelicitous way, expressing frustration with that state of affairs.

There is a qualitative difference between writing a law in a less-than-clear manner so that your opponents can't twist it into a career-ender and attempting to force through a law that will affect both the physical and financial welfare of every single American without allowing anyone else to even see what's in it, and that is PRECISELY what the Republicans tried to do. And as people read through it, we're discovering everything from a defunding of Planned Parenthood to MASSIVE tax cuts to the ultra-rich to sabotage of Medicare and Medicaid hidden inside the law they were so desperate to keep everyone from reading. It even fails at its stated goal, since it reduces coverage, cuts the number of people with insurance, and will increase the average cost of health insurance by $1500 per year PER PERSON.

So yeah, I'll take a guy who claimed a law was deliberately written to look better that it turned out over a criminal organization who did their damnedest to push through something with is nothing less than a deliberate attack on the American people, and to ensure that NO ONE found out what was in it until too late.

***

And on a slightly different topic, you REALLY have to get over your fear of socialism.

Insurance is socialism.
Police are socialism.
The Army, Navy, and Air Force are socialism.
Public education is socialism.
Medicare is socialism.
The Road Commission is socialism.

Stop listening to right-wing fear-mongers and learn what people are actually SAYING when they talk about things 'democratization of wealth'. While there certainly are people who want to turn the US into one huge commune (and even we liberals think they're idiots), a tiny amount of research and a mind open enough to not reject something because of a scary word will show you that the VAST majority of references to that concept simply refer to ensuring that more money remains in circulation and that the economy works better when there is a successful middle-class rather than a weak and shrinking middle class, a large and growing underclass that literally can't afford to feed and house itself without help, and a tiny class of ultra-rich who own 90% of America's wealth.

Seriously, the top 80 Americans own half of the nation's wealth. It's insane. That is the kind of division you find in tin-pot dictatorships. It's a greater divide than existed in Rome at its worst.

And it's the kind of divide that leads to nations ending in fire and blood, and no one here except Colin wants that.

 

[Frothingslosh]

And as I work at a major (not-for-profit!) health insurance company, let me point out one thing:

Retaining the current ban on pre-existing conditions, while the only moral thing to do, comes at a cost: those conditions are expensive. That money has to come from somewhere, and that is WHY the individual mandate exists. It was meant to subsidize the insurance companies to cover the additional expenses caused by treating things like cancer, diabetes, and the like. Basically, as my co-worker puts it, 'Insurance only works when everyone has it.'

(As a side note, let me point out that the 2016 payments to insurers were actually blocked by the GOP. That's one huge reason insurance rates went up this year.)

The same applies to the portion of the ACA banning lifetime limits.

Additionally, having insurance encourages people to get things checked out before they get out of hand. That way, your wife gets regular mammograms and catches that lump before it turns into stage 2 breast cancer, or I go in for a check-up, learn that my blood sugar is a little high, and can correct my diet before it turns into full-blown Type II Diabetes. Prevention is WAY cheaper than correction, and having access to health care thanks to affordable insurance (since there is ZERO chance we'll ever go to the single-payer system the rest of the industrialized world uses) dramatically lowers costs to the company, and thus the members.

By not only removing the individual mandate but putting into place a fine specifically designed to PREVENT people from signing back up if their insurance lapses, TrumpCare will, in fact, FORCE insurance companies to raise their rates, and drastically, in order to deal with those increased costs.

But that's fine with the GOP, because they get to blame someone else.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Jonathan Gruber—the architect of Obamacare—mocking “the stupidity of the American voter” for not perceiving the ways in which the controversial health law concealed its true costs.

Not only did most politicians not bother to read the 20,000 pages, they conspired to withhold the true costs.

All of sudden everyone is a reader: Pelosi has found her reading glasses, Schumer found his....

 

[ColinEssex]

And as I work at a major (not-for-profit!) health insurance company, . . . . .

Surely that must be an oxymoron.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Surely that must be an oxymoron.

Not at all. It means that we are required to match expenditures to income, and our point in existence is to provide a benefit to our members. We do not pay out profit as dividends.

We are not, however, a charity, and the company is required to pay corporate taxes.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

you REALLY have to get over your fear of socialism.

No I don't.

You DO know the definition of the failure of socialism, don't you?

It is when the socialists run out of someone else's money to spend.

For example, see Greece from a couple of years ago.

 

[Frothingslosh]

So then I assume you carry no insurance, that you and your family have never used public schools, public services (such as public roads, police, and fire departments), taken out a student loan, used a public library, received unemployment or Social Security checks, or used Medicaid?

Because those are all socialist by definition, and using them while despising anything 'socialist' makes you either uneducated or a hypocrite.

Take your pick. Either way, you obviously don't have the first clue what the word means.

And thank you for finally proving my points from prior conversations: your complete and utter unwillingness to deal in FACTS, rather than the lies you so happily regurgitate. You just proved yourself to be just another partisan sheep unwilling to think for himself, instead choosing to believe what you're told and fearing those whom your masters tell you to fear because it serves their purposes. You have just shown yourself to be absolutely closed-minded and unwilling to even accept the concept that you might be in error about something.

And here I thought there was a point in actually having a discussion with you. I'm done trying.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothy, as usual you take things to an extreme.

Insurance when NOT subsidized (as you well know) is a pool of voluntary contributors who hope that a lot of folks in their class are generally healthy. Government subsidized insurance is not voluntary for the contributors.

There is a difference between paying in and getting some benefit from the laws of large numbers vs. saying "If you give x money, give me some too." (Even though you never paid into the pool.)

your complete and utter unwillingness to deal in FACTS

As opposed to your mistaken opinions?

I am not a partisan sheep. I am a rational tight-wad, not a knee-jerk tight-wad. There IS a difference despite the fact that you can't seem to see it.

So we are back to name-calling because you have a mental block about how I can't possibly believe what I believe? (Even though I do believe along those lines.) Frothy, you are a good and thoughtful person but that doesn't make you totally right every time.

As far as being in error about something, I am experienced. You do know the meaning of "experienced" don't you? It is the ability to recognize your mistakes when you make them again. Doesn't SOUND like I refuse to believe I'm in error about things. It is just that you have a mental block in a direction that I don't, and the result is what causes sparks.

Was my comment about Mr. Gruber not factual? Crap, that made national headlines - particularly the part where he insulted the American populace. He's lucky he didn't get lynched. No, I wouldn't have done it to him. I'm not that violent. But there are those who only need a couple of drinks to decide that someone's space is more valuable than the person occupying it. Gruber was lucky.

 

[NauticalGent]

Good reply Doc. It kills my how polarized how most Americans have become. If I won't vote for DJT, then that means I HAVE to embrace HRC entirely...or vice versa. Truth is, I voted third party and will continue to do so.

For those of you who may be limbering up your fingers about wasted votes...don't. I have spent all the time I'm going to on that subject. People do nit want to change their minds, they want to argue their point. Damn shame.

A nephew of mine once posted on Facebook about two friends of his arguing on social media. He compared it to Special Olympics...there is a winner, but s/he is still retarded. Crude and insensitive I know, but I still laughed.

Not saying it applies here, most of you can argue in a rational, respectful and lucid manner.

It is just something I keep in mind before I post...it failed me a few days ago, but hopefully I atoned for that, right Colin?!?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Since we are talking about socialism in economy or government, here are some quotes on the subject of "democritization of wealth" - i.e. welfare, which is what was attempted by the A.C.A. and by the liberal agenda.

Oh, by the way, Frothy, all of these quotes are legit. (I had indigestion so stayed up late looking them up online.)

From Alexander Frazer Tytler -

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”

A.E. Samaan -

“You can either have individual liberty, or dependence on the government. One is designed to undo the other.”

Newt Gingrich -

The most important social welfare program in America is a Job

Ronald Reagan -

We must measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.

Thomas Sowell -

“One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.”

Thomas Sowell (again) -

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”

George Bernard Shaw -

“A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul”

Marcus Tullius Cicero -

When you have no argument, abuse the plaintiff.

Frothy, were you taking Cicero's advice earlier?

Benjamin Franklin -

When the people find they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.

Robert A Heinlein -

"Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."

Plutarch -

"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

Aristotle -

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

Here I am, beating a dead horse. Because of that, the next thing you know will be that someone will call me a sadistic sodomistic necrophile. (Adapted from Woody Allen's What's Up Tiger Lily)

 

[ColinEssex]

Not at all. It means that we are required to match expenditures to income, and our point in existence is to provide a benefit to our members. We do not pay out profit as dividends.

We are not, however, a charity, and the company is required to pay corporate taxes.

What absolute rubbish.

Insurance companies are like leeches praying on a captive innocent public. They scare people into feeling insecure, then when they dare to make a claim they wack up the premiums because you are now a bad risk.

Have you ever seen a poor insurance company? They have fancy offices, usually a sports centre with top of range equipment. The workers get massive bonuses and massive commission for mis-selling policies. They rip off people and care nothing whether people can afford the premiums.
IT workers are usually outside consultants who earn hundreds per day - all paid for by Joe Public.

It's a big racket and money gravy train. People who work in insurance companies are usually people who couldn't make it as used car salesmen.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Col...

Do you know the difference between a used-car salesman and an insurance agent?

The used-car salesman usually knows when he is lying.

Having tossed in a little stink-bomb, I will point out that the whole mess is enabled by the laws allowing for a litigious society to exist. If governments would enact an "actual damages only" or "no punitive damages" cap on lawsuits, insurance companies would become LESS necessary. (However, not UNnecessary.)

Now, let's get more thoughtful. I actually believe that there is such a thing as a not-for-profit insurance company. The problem is that the top executives ARE in it for a profit and, with their banking cohorts, created the situation referred to as "golden parachutes." Some execs get multi-million dollar salaries running a company with a bleeding-all-over-the-street balance sheet. Were it left to me, I would do a wage control on top execs for any company that, by a standardized method of determining its financial status, was at the moment losing money.

Further, when an insurance company is publicly traded, you can BET that they are one of the for-profit companies and the investors expect a return on their holdings. The COMPANY might be not-for-profit but the stockholders surely ARE for profits.

 

[NauticalGent]

What absolute rubbish...

...It's a big racket and money gravy train. People who work in insurance companies are usually people who couldn't make it as used car salesmen.

Col

A little over the top don't you think Colin. Even by your standards?

 

[ColinEssex]

A little over the top don't you think Colin. Even by your standards?

Not at all.

I have first hand experience of these parasites, being mis-sold an endowment mortgage. Payment protection slipped in without you knowing, just so they can squeeze more money out of you without a thought for your personal circumstances.
All the salespeople think of is bonus and commission. Don't think of claiming anything as you immediately get a black mark and your premiums rise because you thought you might have a claim, they always find an obscure clause not to pay out.
Anyone associated with insurance companies is just money grabbing. They are all taught that.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Since we got side-tracked on the issue of social programs, let's look at California, one of the more "progressive" states having a liberal agenda.

http://www.investors.com/news/economy/california-still-dreaming-but-wholl-pay-for-it-all/

According to the above article, if you spend too much on social programs, your other issues come up to haunt you. In this article, the author suggests that just 144,000 people, the wealthiest citizens of the state, pay over half of the taxes collected there. So this is definitely a "soak the rich, give to the poor" type of state. That is on the verge of going bankrupt. It is second only to Illinois in terms of fiscal troubles.

 

[Vassago]

Health Insurance Companies are an unnecessary joke. We don't need them. Why do we need a mostly for-profit middle man? So they can negotiate with hospitals to cut SOME of the extremely high cost of healthcare for the few that can afford it in this country? Give me a break. It was never intended to be a necessity as much as a luxury, but we have let that get out of hand at this point.

As for the ACA and pre-existing conditions, DJT has been a joke. He mentions that he wants to keep the part of the ACA requiring companies to cover pre-existing conditions but also remove the requirement to have insurance. THIS WILL NOT WORK. If you think insurance rates are high now, just wait until nobody gets it until they need it.