Poetry Forum

Full Version: did anyone watch the yank elections?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
i did, i really felt sorry for romney, Hysterical
When you feel like you're getting screwed either way and that the country will go bankrupt no matter who gets elected--it's hard to get excited. So, I dodged Romney's 1 trillion dollar defense increase only to get Obama's 1 trillion dollar health care addition. We can't afford either. It was sort of a do you want the bullet or the poison--same result. I watched, but it didn't really matter too much. They're both just politicians that don't really believe what they say anyway.
as an outsider i think your economy and jobs outlook will get much in the next four years. i also can't see where obamacare costs you an extra trillion .most of it is coming from the insurance comps.
Well, the plan calls for an extra trillion annually...and that frankly scares the hell out of me. That said, if they crash the economy (both parties are they to me) they will get voted out. I hope you're right but I'm pretty sure it's just going to hit tax payers. Insurance companies make big donations and have lobbyists...we normal people don't.
i can see why you and others feel as they do Sad
at least the iraq war is over and you're pulling out of Afghanistan.
it all depends on whether or not you can get a good job policy going, with that will come more housing, less social securities etc. i think though, he'll have to make any job scheme an executive order. baines and co won't cross the isle.
i got a glimpse of the celebrations,i can't believe people getting excited by such a farce,it fills me with pity and disgust,as for the politicians,it amazes me they can live with themselves
they have to Wink

i still live in hope that one politician will do something great....i expect the wait to be a long one though Sad
(11-09-2012, 01:10 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]they have to Wink

i still live in hope that one politician will do something great....i expect the wait to be a long one though Sad
Spontaneous Combustion would be great. It would be so great the house and the senate should do it at the same time.

Great Idea about Great!
it's about time they get helped along a bit,before the whole planet goes to shits
Did you say LESS social securities?
Less people will get less of the money that was forcibly taken from them, if that's what you mean.

SS barely passed when it was introduced. It was wildly unpopular (just like the erroneously named universal health care bill). The American people were told they would get back every cent that was put in. That quickly became bs. SS went from `1 account to 3, and just about everything under the sun the govt can't afford is siphoned out of that third acct.

Health care is the same. The insurance companies are NOT footing the bill, I don't know where you got that info. The initial effects are already causing companies to freeze hiring because their costs rose between 13% and 22% last year. It also gave the IRS the ability to monitor private bank accounts, seizing assets, 401ks, and private property of those who refuse or cannot afford to become insured. That is a major over stepping over govt boundaries (the IRS is unconstitutional to begin with) as well as a loss of civil liberties.
Care is already being rationed, with a panel deciding what tests, treatments, and medications will be available to citizens. This is NOT better care, it is not even humane care.

I don't know why you felt sorry for Romney. He won the popular vote. The electoral college was a different matter.

I agree with Todd. Both parties are pretty much one and the same these days.
(11-10-2012, 05:56 PM)Aish Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Did you say LESS social securities?
Less people will get less of the money that was forcibly taken from them, if that's what you mean.
no, i more or less said if they put cash into more manufacturing jobs, more construction jobs etc. there will be less claiming social security. imagine if over 4 years he sorts out 9 to 10 million jobs. he'll be saving on social security tens of billions. gaining money from tax while at the same time improving the infrastructure.

Quote:SS barely passed when it was introduced. It was wildly unpopular (just like the erroneously named universal health care bill). The American people were told they would get back every cent that was put in. That quickly became bs. SS went from `1 account to 3, and just about everything under the sun the govt can't afford is siphoned out of that third acct.
i'm not well up on how it works but i do know the more in work the less needs to be paid out.

Quote:Health care is the same. The insurance companies are NOT footing the bill, I don't know where you got that info.
i never said they were. i said the extra money obama care costs will be coming from them. in that they have to grant existing illness cover, that they can't charge as much, their prices will be capped as well. if people who can afford to pay for health insurance but refuse to do so, shouldn't retrieve treatment.
Quote:Obamacare Upheld: How Health Care Reform Will Affect Your Wallet and Your Life
By Bruce Watson

HealthcareOn Thursday morning, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- aka "Obamacare" -- was constitutional, there was a brief pause as the country took a moment to imagine what this brave new world would look like. Had socialism won the day? Were death panels on the way? Would children be roused out of their beds for compulsory morning calisthenics?

Within moments, Twitter was hopping with messages from conservative dissenters such as Michelle Malkin, Ari Fleischer, the Heritage Foundation, and dozens of others, vowing to keep fighting health care reform all the way. But outside the beltway in the rest of the country, many Americans simply wondered how this ruling would affect their daily lives.

Back to the Future

In some ways, the future is already here. Many portions of the PPACA have already been quietly enacted. The government has streamlined the approval process for generic drugs and expanded Medicare's prescription benefit. It has levied a 10% tax on tanning booths, and passed several rules that will make it easier for people with "pre-existing conditions" to get the lifesaving treatments they need. For insurance companies, lifetime limits on coverage, price gouging, and a host of other cost-cutting measures are now illegal.

Slowly, almost imperceptibly, medication is getting cheaper, insurance coverage is getting easier to attain, and a healthy lifestyle is becoming more attainable.

Now, we can expect that over the next few months, more and more of the future will show up. Starting in August, new insurance policies will not be able to charge a copay for many forms of preventive care -- in other words, treatments like colonoscopies and mammograms will be free for patients who open new insurance policies. A few months later, people who make more than $200,000 per year will start having to pay an extra 0.9% tax which will help fund health care.


The Big Changes You'll Hardly Notice

These are little things, incremental changes that most people won't notice, except perhaps to occasionally wonder about when medications got cheaper or why achieving the Snooki look has gotten more expensive. But the big transition, the creeping socialism that Obamacare detractors are really worried about, will arrive in 2014. That's when everyone will either have to get insurance or pay a tax.

The funny thing is, creeping socialism probably won't feel much different than the current system. Imagine, if you will, an ordinary, middle class family. For mom and dad, who work full time, insurance will still be provided through work. They'll still go to the same doctor, pay the same copay, and head to the same hospital when things get dire. Their kids will still get the same care, too, although they'll be able to take advantage of their parents' health insurance until they're 26, if they need to.

As for grandpa and grandma, if they're over 65, they'll still be insured by Medicare, and their lives will largely go on as usual. If they're younger, and suddenly find themselves without insurance -- if, for example, grandpa is laid off from his job -- they will be able to get health insurance in spite of their pre-existing conditions. So grandpa may be stuck working part-time as a Walmart greeter, but he won't have to worry about paying for his insulin and blood pressure meds.


The Big Changes You Will

But what if grandpa's new job doesn't pay much and he can't afford insurance? Well, the new law may still cover him. One aspect of PPACA is that people who make up to 133% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $23,344 -- would be eligible for Medicaid at no cost. Meanwhile, families that make up to 400% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $70,208 -- would be eligible for some form of discounted insurance rate, scaled to their income.

So mom and dad, grandpa and grandma, and the kids are covered. What about Uncle Hank, the uninsured rebel with the ponytail and the motorcycle? Well, assuming he makes more than 400% of the poverty line, Hank's going to face a tough decision: He can either get insurance or pay a tax that will probably be slightly higher than the cost of insurance.

Hank might be able to get insurance through his work, but if he can't, the new law will give him another choice. It requires each state to create a health insurance exchange -- basically, an online marketplace where various insurance companies can directly compete with each other. Here are some proposals for Minnesota's health insurance exchange.

If Uncle Hank decides not to pay the health care tax, he would likely go to the exchange, pick a plan, set up a direct deposit program to take money from his paycheck -- much like the health insurance withholding that mom and dad pay -- and get an insurance card. And, later, if Hank gets into an accident on his bike, his insurance would cover his trip to the emergency room, as well as his ensuing operation and physical therapy.

The Winners and the Losers

So who wins and who loses under the new insurance program? For insurance companies, it's going to be a mixed bag: On the plus side, they will get millions of new, relatively young customers like Uncle Hank who will be cheap to insure, and will add mightily to their coffers. On the opposite side, they'll also get millions of older, low-income customers -- like grandpa and grandma -- who will be expensive to insure, and will have pricey pre-existing conditions. Overall, the insurance companies will probably make a tidy profit.

For the poor, the chronically ill, and the unemployed, the new insurance program will also be a definite win. Millions of people will be able to afford basic health care, get diagnostic tests, and buy medications. Many will be covered by an expanded Medicaid program, and those who aren't will likely see a steep drop in the cost of insurance.



For the average taxpayer, the new program will also be a win. Right now, a lot of the basic health care in America takes place in emergency rooms, where uninsured people end up when their colds turn into pneumonia, their untreated diabetes turns into a coma or an amputation, or their unmedicated high blood pressure leads to a heart attack. Many of these emergency rooms are already receiving taxpayer dollars. Preventing major, expensive health crises while they are small, inexpensive-to-treat problems saves everyone money.


In fact, the biggest losers of the new health care program will be folks like Uncle Hank, who previously didn't worry about health insurance, but will now have to pay for it. On the other hand, many will now have access to preventative care and basic medical care that were previously unavailable. Speaking as someone who once had to pay over $1,000 out-of-pocket for the treatment of a broken hand, I'd argue that mandatory health insurance might be an unwelcome prescription, but it is hardly unnecessary medicine.

The initial effects are already causing companies to freeze hiring because their costs rose between 13% and 22% last year. It also gave the IRS the ability to monitor private bank accounts, seizing assets, 401ks, and private property of those who refuse or cannot afford to become insured. That is a major over stepping over govt boundaries (the IRS is unconstitutional to begin with) as well as a loss of civil liberties.
Care is already being rationed, with a panel deciding what tests, treatments, and medications will be available to citizens. This is NOT better care, it is not even humane care.

I don't know why you felt sorry for Romney. He won the popular vote. The electoral college was a different matter.

I agree with Todd. Both parties are pretty much one and the same these days.
safe 10% on your "defence"budget and you can give everybody free health care ,that's how to look after your own people
Here are some nice facts for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ

http://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attach...072909.pdf

The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research ("Federal Council") Section 9201 H.R. 1 Version of the Stimulus Bill

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios.html

Health Care Bill Section 1181 p.502 and Section 1233 "Advanced Care Planning" http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

Stimulus Bill pg 116, 442 and 446 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/text
I probably fall in a strange political no man's land in my country.

I think both major parties are corrupt. We spend too much to be safe or fiscally secure. The government tries to expand its power constantly. I have no desire to police the world or dispatch armies beyond my borders when I haven't been attacked. I have no desire to dictate the private lives of citizens. I could care less what anyone does in their bedrooms. I also want a societal safety net and have no desire to step over starving children in the street. Whether that should be handled by government or private charity--I'm indifferent. I don't resent those that need help. I'm for legalizing drugs and emptying prisons of non-violent criminals. I mostly want people working, a vibrant economy, and safe borders and property rights. I'm not sure there's a place for those of us in the US that don't toe some party line. I'm simply glad I don't have to put up with this crap for another 4 years. Nothing will change in any positive way no matter hitch of these jokers get in. So, the same deal every four years.
(11-10-2012, 06:52 PM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-10-2012, 05:56 PM)Aish Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Did you say LESS social securities?
Less people will get less of the money that was forcibly taken from them, if that's what you mean.
no, i more or less said if they put cash into more manufacturing jobs, more construction jobs etc. there will be less claiming social security. imagine if over 4 years he sorts out 9 to 10 million jobs. he'll be saving on social security tens of billions. gaining money from tax while at the same time improving the infrastructure. He already had 4 years to sort out jobs and it got worse, not better. Also has little to no bearing on SS. Unemployment payments, yes - which are also taken by force, only paid out of approved, and only worth 35% of what the worker was forced to put in over a 5 year period, not cumulative for the entire time they were in the workforce. How fair is it to have the gov't forcibly take a persons wages (for SS, for income taxes, for medicare, for unemployment 'insurance') and then do as much as possible not to pay it back to that person?
He could have introduced a real works project to spend the stimulus on (like the interstate highway system did in 1956 and might have had some real job creation success.


Quote:SS barely passed when it was introduced. It was wildly unpopular (just like the erroneously named universal health care bill). The American people were told they would get back every cent that was put in. That quickly became bs. SS went from `1 account to 3, and just about everything under the sun the govt can't afford is siphoned out of that third acct.
i'm not well up on how it works but i do know the more in work the less needs to be paid out. Wrong. The first SS account is a PORTION of what individuals pay on the duration of their working lives. When they are of retirement age (up to 73 now) they are able to draw a portion of it back. If they became wealthy enough over their life time it will be denied them. That is a small percentage, though. For everyone else, it i meted out to them monthly, and not enough to live on. It is also taxed as income (when it was taxed already). Many people are forced to try and live off less than $1000/month. For married couples, when spouse dies instead of the remainder of the account being released to the surviving spouse, it reverts back to the gov't. Account 2 is used to distribute money to people who qualify for DISABILITY - many of whom never worked to begin with (in reality that i another portion of the working persons money that was taken before they ever received their paychecks).
Account 3 is the catchall account, pilfered at will by the government. None of this has to do with unemployment.

Quote:Health care is the same. The insurance companies are NOT footing the bill, I don't know where you got that info.
i never said they were. i said the extra money obama care costs will be coming from them. in that they have to grant existing illness cover, that they can't charge as much, their prices will be capped as well. if people who can afford to pay for health insurance but refuse to do so, shouldn't retrieve treatment.
Quote:Obamacare Upheld: How Health Care Reform Will Affect Your Wallet and Your Life
By Bruce Watson

HealthcareOn Thursday morning, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- aka "Obamacare" -- was constitutional, there was a brief pause as the country took a moment to imagine what this brave new world would look like. Had socialism won the day? Were death panels on the way? Would children be roused out of their beds for compulsory morning calisthenics?

Within moments, Twitter was hopping with messages from conservative dissenters such as Michelle Malkin, Ari Fleischer, the Heritage Foundation, and dozens of others, vowing to keep fighting health care reform all the way. But outside the beltway in the rest of the country, many Americans simply wondered how this ruling would affect their daily lives.

Back to the Future

In some ways, the future is already here. Many portions of the PPACA have already been quietly enacted. The government has streamlined the approval process for generic drugs and expanded Medicare's prescription benefit. It has levied a 10% tax on tanning booths, and passed several rules that will make it easier for people with "pre-existing conditions" to get the lifesaving treatments they need. For insurance companies, lifetime limits on coverage, price gouging, and a host of other cost-cutting measures are now illegal.

Slowly, almost imperceptibly, medication is getting cheaper, insurance coverage is getting easier to attain, and a healthy lifestyle is becoming more attainable.

Now, we can expect that over the next few months, more and more of the future will show up. Starting in August, new insurance policies will not be able to charge a copay for many forms of preventive care -- in other words, treatments like colonoscopies and mammograms will be free for patients who open new insurance policies. A few months later, people who make more than $200,000 per year will start having to pay an extra 0.9% tax which will help fund health care.


The Big Changes You'll Hardly Notice

These are little things, incremental changes that most people won't notice, except perhaps to occasionally wonder about when medications got cheaper or why achieving the Snooki look has gotten more expensive. But the big transition, the creeping socialism that Obamacare detractors are really worried about, will arrive in 2014. That's when everyone will either have to get insurance or pay a tax.

The funny thing is, creeping socialism probably won't feel much different than the current system. Imagine, if you will, an ordinary, middle class family. For mom and dad, who work full time, insurance will still be provided through work. They'll still go to the same doctor, pay the same copay, and head to the same hospital when things get dire. Their kids will still get the same care, too, although they'll be able to take advantage of their parents' health insurance until they're 26, if they need to.

As for grandpa and grandma, if they're over 65, they'll still be insured by Medicare, and their lives will largely go on as usual. If they're younger, and suddenly find themselves without insurance -- if, for example, grandpa is laid off from his job -- they will be able to get health insurance in spite of their pre-existing conditions. So grandpa may be stuck working part-time as a Walmart greeter, but he won't have to worry about paying for his insulin and blood pressure meds.


The Big Changes You Will

But what if grandpa's new job doesn't pay much and he can't afford insurance? Well, the new law may still cover him. One aspect of PPACA is that people who make up to 133% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $23,344 -- would be eligible for Medicaid at no cost. Meanwhile, families that make up to 400% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $70,208 -- would be eligible for some form of discounted insurance rate, scaled to their income.

So mom and dad, grandpa and grandma, and the kids are covered. What about Uncle Hank, the uninsured rebel with the ponytail and the motorcycle? Well, assuming he makes more than 400% of the poverty line, Hank's going to face a tough decision: He can either get insurance or pay a tax that will probably be slightly higher than the cost of insurance.

Hank might be able to get insurance through his work, but if he can't, the new law will give him another choice. It requires each state to create a health insurance exchange -- basically, an online marketplace where various insurance companies can directly compete with each other. Here are some proposals for Minnesota's health insurance exchange.

If Uncle Hank decides not to pay the health care tax, he would likely go to the exchange, pick a plan, set up a direct deposit program to take money from his paycheck -- much like the health insurance withholding that mom and dad pay -- and get an insurance card. And, later, if Hank gets into an accident on his bike, his insurance would cover his trip to the emergency room, as well as his ensuing operation and physical therapy.

The Winners and the Losers

So who wins and who loses under the new insurance program? For insurance companies, it's going to be a mixed bag: On the plus side, they will get millions of new, relatively young customers like Uncle Hank who will be cheap to insure, and will add mightily to their coffers. On the opposite side, they'll also get millions of older, low-income customers -- like grandpa and grandma -- who will be expensive to insure, and will have pricey pre-existing conditions. Overall, the insurance companies will probably make a tidy profit.

For the poor, the chronically ill, and the unemployed, the new insurance program will also be a definite win. Millions of people will be able to afford basic health care, get diagnostic tests, and buy medications. Many will be covered by an expanded Medicaid program, and those who aren't will likely see a steep drop in the cost of insurance.



For the average taxpayer, the new program will also be a win. Right now, a lot of the basic health care in America takes place in emergency rooms, where uninsured people end up when their colds turn into pneumonia, their untreated diabetes turns into a coma or an amputation, or their unmedicated high blood pressure leads to a heart attack. Many of these emergency rooms are already receiving taxpayer dollars. Preventing major, expensive health crises while they are small, inexpensive-to-treat problems saves everyone money.


In fact, the biggest losers of the new health care program will be folks like Uncle Hank, who previously didn't worry about health insurance, but will now have to pay for it. On the other hand, many will now have access to preventative care and basic medical care that were previously unavailable. Speaking as someone who once had to pay over $1,000 out-of-pocket for the treatment of a broken hand, I'd argue that mandatory health insurance might be an unwelcome prescription, but it is hardly unnecessary medicine.
Your source is not very reliable. Obamacare was upheld by saying the individual mandate is a tax, but the fight i hardly over. Constitutionally Congress cannot force people to do anything Congress wishes. It also DID NOT reform the healthcare system, at least not in the good way you're supposed to think it did.

The initial effects are already causing companies to freeze hiring because their costs rose between 13% and 22% last year. It also gave the IRS the ability to monitor private bank accounts, seizing assets, 401ks, and private property of those who refuse or cannot afford to become insured. That is a major over stepping over govt boundaries (the IRS is unconstitutional to begin with) as well as a loss of civil liberties.
Care is already being rationed, with a panel deciding what tests, treatments, and medications will be available to citizens. This is NOT better care, it is not even humane care.

I don't know why you felt sorry for Romney. He won the popular vote. The electoral college was a different matter.

I agree with Todd. Both parties are pretty much one and the same these days.

(11-11-2012, 07:00 AM)Todd Wrote: [ -> ]I probably fall in a strange political no man's land in my country.

I think both major parties are corrupt. We spend too much to be safe or fiscally secure. The government tries to expand its power constantly. I have no desire to police the world or dispatch armies beyond my borders when I haven't been attacked. I have no desire to dictate the private lives of citizens. I could care less what anyone does in their bedrooms. I also want a societal safety net and have no desire to step over starving children in the street. Whether that should be handled by government or private charity--I'm indifferent. I don't resent those that need help. I'm for legalizing drugs and emptying prisons of non-violent criminals. I mostly want people working, a vibrant economy, and safe borders and property rights. I'm not sure there's a place for those of us in the US that don't toe some party line. I'm simply glad I don't have to put up with this crap for another 4 years. Nothing will change in any positive way no matter hitch of these jokers get in. So, the same deal every four years.
THIS ( I'm Libertarian)
Todd, when you get your own country I want to live in it.
Thanks Leanne...I'm sure that country is just around the corner. Wink

Aish, I guess I'm close to libertarian I doubt ayn rand would approve of my social safety net though.
Ayn Rand wouldn't have approved of anything that didn't add to her own sense of superiority. I'm pretty sure she died from smugness overload.
John Galt's speech read in dry monotone is the first thousand years of hell.
(11-11-2012, 07:35 AM)Todd Wrote: [ -> ]John Galt's speech read in dry monotone is the first thousand years of hell.
as he'll no doubt find out when it's his turn...
Pages: 1 2 3