Topix Chitown Regulars

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#92305 Oct 4, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obamacare drastically increase the total amount spent. The CBO estimates it will cost the federal government will pay out 1.7 Trillion from 2014-2023, to cover 27 million people. That works out to a cost of $6,300 for each of those 27 million people, per year!!!
Instead of lowering cost and improving care, they made cost go through the roof to improve care, and guess who gets stuck paying that $6,300 our children and grandchildren (in the form of debt we will take on) and those of us who are already insured and who pay taxes. Not only did taxes go up for us, but our medical care is going up, just so 27 million bottom feeders can get more free shyte that they don't pay for and couldn't care less how it affects others to provide them. They want healthcare and they want others to pay for it. They can go f' off.
Some portion of that money goes to subsidize teh insurance premiums of low income people. Not all low income people stay that way. the number flucuates. For example, my grad student daughter who worked last year but is scarbbling to find part time jobs this year will qualify for teh premium subsidy. Eventually she will make enough money not to be a drain but to pay back into teh sytem. This will also hold true of her friends who are young, healthy and at the beginning of there wage arning careers.

The bottom feeders consume health care. In my experience the lowest paid people consume the most health care. If they are uninsured the health sytem renders teh care as a charity expense for which they must raise charges for teh rest of us. Do you want to go into a hospital which has the insured wing and the paupers ward? Didn't think so. The cost has to be capitalized. If there is someone to pay, teh care can be controlled and spread more equitably so teh government pays less overall.. Think of it as water seeking its own level.

The concept of insurance in the abstract requires collecting premiums from people who don't make claims which will balance the payouts for people with high costs whose premiums paid were less than the cost of their care.(Insurance companies are very highly regulated. Their loss ratios are published quarterly and the premiums they can charge are adjusted up or down. Insurance companies are the one industry that weathered the 2008 crash well. The part of AIG which had the problems was not its insurance companies) Premiums for people with good histories are less but are still present. If you compel people with a low loss experience into the pool, they will pay lower premiums from a larger number of people which will allow the carriers to fund care across the board. No too many people are still griping about mandatory auto insurance any more although they howled when the requirement was first being passed.

There is also the social concept that the less fortunate should be cared for by those with more. Will there be abuses, bottom dwellers, frauds? Of course. I am galled by that and I actively work against such people. But , and it is a big but, I am willing to tolerate that gall for the sake of the benefit that more people have access to reasonable health care because I see that as something basic and humane. Therefore the cost you cite is fluid, may go up or down but is one I am willing to stomach.

The health care available to the ACA people in the lower tiers of the policies will not be the same as you get. There will be many more paraprofessionals, more clinics rather than one on one docs. That will weed out the Gomers and identify those who need care.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#92306 Oct 4, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with background checks for guns, but unfortunately because of the way the Constitution is written, I think it needs to happen at the state level.
As the second amendment, which limits the power of the federal government, quite clearly states:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the federal government]."
That is pretty unambiguous language.
What about the first part of the sentence? The part that talks about maintaining a well regulated militia?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How about anybody who gets a gun license automatically is signed up for 2 years of military reserve service? Among other things we would be assured that a gun owner was rigorously trained in gun usage, that gang bangers would know how to shoot only the guys they want and avoid collateral damage to babies in strollers.

Israel has mandatory service

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92307 Oct 4, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>How about corporate handouts? I've been in Exxon stations where they are getting around $4 for every gallon of product they sell yet they get hundreds of millions in subsidies from the giverment! They are buying filet mignon and caviar AND politicians with corporate welfare! If you can't make it on billions in profits without giverment handouts, maybe Exxon ought to get a job at McDonalds!
Is the federal government actually giving it money or is it allowing it to keep more of its own money? I think itís the latter. Letting someone keep more of what they have earned is rather different than giving folks things for free. You realize this, no?

Having said that I despise the tax breaks for big oil. It does nothing for anyone, except those corporations.

Oil is a global commodity Ö just because it is pumped out of the ground here or refined into gas here, doesnít mean it stays here Ö it follows the $$. The only reason you would want to encourage national production is if you thought an OPEC type embargo would be possible, in which case under such circumstances you could in theory enact legislation requiring all oil produced here to stay here, to prevent shortages.

OPEC is not nearly the force they were in the 70s Ö and politically/economically, the world is quite different today than it was in the 1970s. I donít see it happening.

It is poor policy and is one of the things I disagree with the republicans about, along with their general disdain for the environment. Iím not a republican. Iím also not a democrat.

Having said that if you think cutting back on big oil tax breaks, even in combination with higher taxes on the 1%(both of which I support) will put our country on a sustainable course, absent additional cuts to spending, including entitlements, I have a bridge Iíd like to sell you. Itís not possible. There are not enough 1%ers and there are not enough tax breaks to make it so.

At some point, entitlement spending will need to be reformed along with these things. I know it breaks your liberal heart, but itís just reality. What republicans and democrats need to do is sit down and strike a ďgrand bargainĒ and if we want to do it right, bother are going to have to give more than they want to.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#92309 Oct 4, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with background checks for guns, but unfortunately because of the way the Constitution is written, I think it needs to happen at the state level.
As the second amendment, which limits the power of the federal government, quite clearly states:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the federal government]."
That is pretty unambiguous language.
I am not re-arguing any gun control cases but the 2nd Amendment does not include reference to the Federal government. It stops at "infringed". That supports eh argument that eh Federal government cannot limit the right to keep and bear arms. It does not specify whether anyone else can. I am aware that Chicago fought and lost that battle. Just keeping you honest

“It made sense at the time....”

Since: May 09

Schaumburg, IL

#92310 Oct 4, 2013
OK, I *do* know how to skip posts, and i must say taht i'm getting tired of scrollign past better than 75% of them, lately.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92311 Oct 4, 2013
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
Some portion of that money goes to subsidize teh insurance premiums of low income people. Not all low income people stay that way. the number flucuates. For example, my grad student daughter who worked last year but is scarbbling to find part time jobs this year will qualify for teh premium subsidy. Eventually she will make enough money not to be a drain but to pay back into teh sytem. This will also hold true of her friends who are young, healthy and at the beginning of there wage arning careers.
You really arenít subsidizing their care for them. We are subsidizing their care so they can subsidize the care of older folks. A big part of Obamacare is to get younger healthier folks into the insurance game so that they can help offset the costs of older folks and folks. Older folks on average require much more care than they pay in, whereas younger folks pay in much more than the care they receive. Heck, when I was in my 20s, I might have only gone to the doctor once every few years.

So, we arenít really subsidizing your daughters care Ö we are subsidizing older folks, who likely wonít ever pay back into the system.
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom feeders consume health care. In my experience the lowest paid people consume the most health care. If they are uninsured the health sytem renders teh care as a charity expense for which they must raise charges for teh rest of us. Do you want to go into a hospital which has the insured wing and the paupers ward? Didn't think so. The cost has to be capitalized. If there is someone to pay, teh care can be controlled and spread more equitably so teh government pays less overall.. Think of it as water seeking its own level.
Thatís how hosipitals are already run, i.e. with an insured wing and a puapers ward. I know. They send uninsured and medicare folks home way faster than insured folks. I donít really have a problem with that. I donít have a problem with folks who donít contribute to the system and only drain it, receiving somewhat less care. I think they deserve care, but I have no problem with less care.

Also the government is going pay less overall. Itís going to spend about 6300 for each of the 27 million folks who will now have coverage because of the law. Thatís an outrageous sum of money. How many households in this country do you think even pay $6300 or more each year in federal income tax?
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of insurance in the abstract requires collecting premiums from people who don't make claims which will balance the payouts for people with high costs whose premiums paid were less than the cost of their care.(Insurance companies are very highly regulated. Their loss ratios are published quarterly and the premiums they can charge are adjusted up or down. Insurance companies are the one industry that weathered the 2008 crash well. The part of AIG which had the problems was not its insurance companies) Premiums for people with good histories are less but are still present. If you compel people with a low loss experience into the pool, they will pay lower premiums from a larger number of people which will allow the carriers to fund care across the board. No too many people are still griping about mandatory auto insurance any more although they howled when the requirement was first being passed.
The problem I have is not so much with the mandate, but the subsidies.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#92312 Oct 4, 2013
I never said change the topic, or conform to my will. I am just saying the topic is played out, dead horse etc. etc. And as for you taking your own advice, I was referring to the skipping of posts you dont care for. You did not like what I said, and rather than simply ignore it and move on, you decided to tell me to do the very thing you did not do. That's called hypocrisy.

Nothing but love bro!
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never once told anyone they need to change the topic of conversation, because I don't care for it. I would never even think to do that or think that others must obey me and limit their discussions to topics I find tasteful and enjoy.
So, contrary to what you say, I do take my advice.
Nothing personal, Race. I'm just being honest. Doesn't mean I don't like ya.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92314 Oct 4, 2013
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is also the social concept that the less fortunate should be cared for by those with more. Will there be abuses, bottom dwellers, frauds? Of course. I am galled by that and I actively work against such people. But , and it is a big but, I am willing to tolerate that gall for the sake of the benefit that more people have access to reasonable health care because I see that as something basic and humane. Therefore the cost you cite is fluid, may go up or down but is one I am willing to stomach.
The current system already cares for those who are less fortunate. Is it lesser care;yes, but even under Obamacare they will have lesser care.

I don't see lesser care as a sin. If you want the best care you need to earn it and pay for it. Nothing but a basic safety net should be free in life. A basic safety net should not, by definition, be all that wonderful. If you want more than that, than you need to put in the effort to make that happen.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92315 Oct 4, 2013
Aisle Sitter wrote:
OK, I *do* know how to skip posts, and i must say taht i'm getting tired of scrollign past better than 75% of them, lately.
I'm with ya -- heh, and I've been a contributor. While I think it's an important subject, it seems we can't escape it for a minute.

Let's start with WEEKEND PLANS people. Red isn't around to prompt that.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92316 Oct 4, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>Well- parenthetically speaking- words strung together don't get much more ambiguous than the 2A. We don't arm prisoners or toddlers (on purpose)for example, so, what part of "shall not be infringed" are you people letting the government get away with?
I'm not letting the courts get away with anything. Courts don't always do what I say they should do.

I have my own thoughts on how judges should interpret laws, but other judges feel different and there is precedent. If I were a judge, the language seems pretty clear to me ... I don't have to like it ... I don't have to agree with it ... that's how a good judge should operate ... just interpret the law without your own thoughts on the subject coming into the equation ... be like Spock ... no emotional attachment or interest ... it's hard to do, but that should be the first thing every judge strives to do, IMO, when interpreting laws.

I'm pretty sure states would not allow toddlers or prisoners to be armed, btw. This is Hyperbole.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92318 Oct 4, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The current system already cares for those who are less fortunate. Is it lesser care;yes, but even under Obamacare they will have lesser care.
I don't see lesser care as a sin. If you want the best care you need to earn it and pay for it. Nothing but a basic safety net should be free in life. A basic safety net should not, by definition, be all that wonderful. If you want more than that, than you need to put in the effort to make that happen.
Go in the corner with your marbles and don't share. We're okay with you doing that.

Most people understand there are people who cannot work to earn it for many different reasons. Also, there are people who, no matter how hard they work, under the current system their preexisting condition renders them uninsurable. I'm not going to list everyone who is unable to "work for it" as you put it.

There will always be fraud and lazy people. Doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bath water.

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92320 Oct 4, 2013
Hey, who saw the flap with Sinead and Miley Cyrus. And does anyone else think Miley Cyrus is getting even more irritating?

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92321 Oct 4, 2013
I guess there are two landfalls for Tropical Storm Karen.

Is that the one they fear will turn into a hurricane?

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#92322 Oct 4, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>Well- parenthetically speaking- words strung together don't get much more ambiguous than the 2A. We don't arm prisoners or toddlers (on purpose)for example, so, what part of "shall not be infringed" are you people letting the government get away with?
There are some things which are assumed and which don't have to be stated.

If you reference a wheel you do not have to say it is round every time.

When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, people meant human beings not otherwise under a legal impediment. Legal impediments at the time meant being a lunatic, a child ( don't ask me what the age of majority was in 1790. I don't remember), a woman or a slave.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92323 Oct 4, 2013
Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
Go in the corner with your marbles and don't share. We're okay with you doing that.
Most people understand there are people who cannot work to earn it for many different reasons. Also, there are people who, no matter how hard they work, under the current system their preexisting condition renders them uninsurable. I'm not going to list everyone who is unable to "work for it" as you put it.
There will always be fraud and lazy people. Doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bath water.
I don't have a problem with Obamacare forbidding insurance company's from denying folks insurance for preexisting conditions. It's one of the few aspects I like.

People who cannot work, can go on disability and get medicare. If they can't qualify for disability, then they can work. Do you understand that?

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#92325 Oct 4, 2013
Toj wrote:
There will always be fraud and lazy people. Doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bath water.
Sure it does. They shouldn't have had those babies in the first place. <eyeroll>

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#92326 Oct 4, 2013
A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>You don't understand any part of "...shall not be infringed."
You don't understand that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. It was only through some f'd up contorted rational that the SC in 2010 said the 14th amendment incorporates the 2nd amendment and applies it to states. I don't agree with that. If the 14th amendment intended to incorporate the language of the 2nd amendment would be in the 14th amendment. The SC uses all these goofy tests that they make up to see what articles of the constitution applies to the state or not. Once the test is made up in one situation, through precedent it gets applied in others ... the whole case law gets all f'd up. I think laws should be narrowly tailored according to intent, not take on a life of their own that no one ever intended they have.

So, if I were a judge, I would say the 2nd Amendment does not apply to states, because I don't feel that was the intent of the 14th amendment.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#92327 Oct 4, 2013
Toj wrote:
Let's start with WEEKEND PLANS people. Red isn't around to prompt that.
Tonight: Just me and Nunu, hanging out. Lulu has a pizza party to go to.

Sat: Prep for Lulu's 8th birthday party, which is going to be a pool party at our local YWCA in the evening. 20 wet kids. Yay!

Sun: I know I'm supposed to be doing something, but I can't quite remember what that is right now. I hope it's not too important...

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92328 Oct 4, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with Obamacare forbidding insurance company's from denying folks insurance for preexisting conditions. It's one of the few aspects I like.
People who cannot work, can go on disability and get medicare. If they can't qualify for disability, then they can work. Do you understand that?
Which is it then? Affordable Care Act can be good or it's evil?

You don't want it. You've been spouting against it for days. How would those people with pre-existing conditions get coverage if not for the Affordable Care Act?

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#92329 Oct 4, 2013
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
Tonight: Just me and Nunu, hanging out. Lulu has a pizza party to go to.
Sat: Prep for Lulu's 8th birthday party, which is going to be a pool party at our local YWCA in the evening. 20 wet kids. Yay!
Sun: I know I'm supposed to be doing something, but I can't quite remember what that is right now. I hope it's not too important...
I did pool parties for birthdays. They're fun.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 22 min Into The Night 54,534
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr sonicfilter 1,276,635
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 hr Joe Balls 196,919
Steve Wilkos : talk show host ? or simple mi... (Feb '08) 5 hr mila123 407
ask amy 8-29-15 5 hr Mister Tonka 7
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 8 hr Perrie Winkle 6,424
How to get into the USA. 8 hr New Beach Boys Song 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages