Why Don't Republicans Simply Fund ACA?

Althea said:
They doubled for one of a few possible reasons. If your employer gives you the insurance, they simply added to your share of the cost, and blamed the negro in the White House.

Or, you live in a Red state that refused to set up a quality exchange.

More than likely, it's due to a lack of competition, and a lack of funding that Republicans did away with. They forced 12 insurance companies to go out of business in '16 when they de funded the risk corridor program. That was by design, so that they could blame your costs on a failed law, when they were the ones responsible.
Click to expand...

Or is could have been because the negro in the White House was to blame because he put in place a system that he knew was designed to fail in order that single payer could be forced upon the country. Add to that the Democrat's willingness to try and twist it as if the only reason Obamacare failed was because the Republicans didn't support it.

All of the things you posted point back to Obamacare being put into effect in the first place. Whether direct or indirect, none can have the possibility of occurring unless the Democrats first play politics to get Obamacare passed.
 
Dogma said:
if liberals really believe in free education and healthcare, why aren't they leading by example and forfeiting every dollar earned? Wait, Wait, I think I just stumbled on the answer.....LOL
Click to expand...


I've asked many of the bleeding hearts the same thing for years. There have been many of them that stated EXCUSES as to why certain elements in society (i.e. - those that have more income/wealth than the bleeding hearts think they should have) should be forced to fund what they support. I have yet to find one that, when posed with the option of funding it like you say, was willing to do that to prove they care as much as their words claim they care.
 
Althea said:
Unrealistic in the 21st century.
Click to expand...


More like an unwillingness by the bleeding hearts because they think healthcare is somehow a right. As long as you bleeding hearts claim it as a right, it gives you an excuse to support forcing others to do for those for which you claim to care while you take credit for the government spending someone else's money.

Here's a realistic solution. Get the feds out of it. If someone doesn't have coverage, you provide it to them with YOUR money and leave mine out of it. That way both of us get what we want. Those you think should have coverage get it and I'm not one of those forced to help pay for it. It's really that simple. People like you keep it from being that simple because you refuse to fund with your money what you say should be funded.
 
CFM said:
More like an unwillingness by the bleeding hearts because they think healthcare is somehow a right. As long as you bleeding hearts claim it as a right, it gives you an excuse to support forcing others to do for those for which you claim to care while you take credit for the government spending someone else's money.

Here's a realistic solution. Get the feds out of it. If someone doesn't have coverage, you provide it to them with YOUR money and leave mine out of it. That way both of us get what we want. Those you think should have coverage get it and I'm not one of those forced to help pay for it. It's really that simple. People like you keep it from being that simple because you refuse to fund with your money what you say should be funded.
Click to expand...

now this is where you look like an idiot hypocrite. you claim that the people are not able to govern themselves, thus they need a federal government, but here you are telling people to get the feds out of it. what is it you want, statist?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
now this is where you look like an idiot hypocrite. you claim that the people are not able to govern themselves, thus they need a federal government, but here you are telling people to get the feds out of it. what is it you want, statist?
Click to expand...

Now this is where you look like an idiot, period. Why don't you point out what I said where people need the federal government. I promote those that think someone without healthcare fund it themselves with their own money and without government involvement. Try to read.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
once again, a liberal proves that they have no concept of economic consequences.
Click to expand...
I think it's a good idea which would also stop a lot of high speed trading.

"These high-frequency traders ... make enormous amounts of money, billions and billions of dollars, and do nothing of any social value for the economy," said Len Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "They're just kind of the modern-day equivalent of skimming pennies out of the till."

The idea of a tax on financial transactions is anything but new. Over the years, versions of it have been proposed by economists John Maynard Keynes and James Tobin. The United States actually had such a tax until 1966, as do numerous countries today. The European Union is expected to impose one as soon as next year.

Under the Sanders proposal, trades would be taxed at a rate of 0.5 percent for stocks and 0.1 percent for bonds. A stock trade of $1,000 would thus incur a cost of $5.

Burman believes the tax "would have mixed effects."

"On the one hand, it will raise the cost of investment," he said. "It's going to be a little bit more costly to get capital to businesses and others who have got useful things they want to do with it, and that's a cost to the economy.

"On the other hand, to the extent that it discourages unproductive trading ... that's a good thing for the economy."


http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/46646...ion-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that


Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
I think it's a good idea which would also stop a lot of high speed trading.

"These high-frequency traders ... make enormous amounts of money, billions and billions of dollars, and do nothing of any social value for the economy," said Len Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "They're just kind of the modern-day equivalent of skimming pennies out of the till."

The idea of a tax on financial transactions is anything but new. Over the years, versions of it have been proposed by economists John Maynard Keynes and James Tobin. The United States actually had such a tax until 1966, as do numerous countries today. The European Union is expected to impose one as soon as next year.

Under the Sanders proposal, trades would be taxed at a rate of 0.5 percent for stocks and 0.1 percent for bonds. A stock trade of $1,000 would thus incur a cost of $5.

Burman believes the tax "would have mixed effects."

"On the one hand, it will raise the cost of investment," he said. "It's going to be a little bit more costly to get capital to businesses and others who have got useful things they want to do with it, and that's a cost to the economy.

"On the other hand, to the extent that it discourages unproductive trading ... that's a good thing for the economy."
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/46646...ion-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that


Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
Click to expand...

Just more and more socialism to fund things for freeloaders in society unwilling to provide for themselves.
 
CFM said:
More like an unwillingness by the bleeding hearts because they think healthcare is somehow a right. As long as you bleeding hearts claim it as a right, it gives you an excuse to support forcing others to do for those for which you claim to care while you take credit for the government spending someone else's money.

Here's a realistic solution. Get the feds out of it. If someone doesn't have coverage, you provide it to them with YOUR money and leave mine out of it. That way both of us get what we want. Those you think should have coverage get it and I'm not one of those forced to help pay for it. It's really that simple. People like you keep it from being that simple because you refuse to fund with your money what you say should be funded.
Click to expand...

It is a right, well in a civilised country anyway. You're in the wrong century pal, stick your musket up your arse.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Milagro said:
It is a right, well in a civilised country anyway. You're in the wrong century pal, stick your musket up your arse.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
Click to expand...

Not because some socialist piece of shit like you says so. Why do you oppose personal responsibility? Why do you oppose people providing the things for themselves that they should be providing to themselves? Why do you think it's the government's responsibility to do for someone so unwilling to do for him/herself?

You don't have a right to something if it involves forcing someone else to fund it. If someone isn't willing to do for him/herself, they can do without.
 
CFM said:
Not because some socialist piece of shit like you says so. Why do you oppose personal responsibility? Why do you oppose people providing the things for themselves that they should be providing to themselves? Why do you think it's the government's responsibility to do for someone so unwilling to do for him/herself?

You don't have a right to something if it involves forcing someone else to fund it. If someone isn't willing to do for him/herself, they can do without.
Click to expand...
Why don't you go swallow a hand grenade?

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Milagro said:
Why don't you go swallow a hand grenade?

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
Click to expand...

Little socialist piece of shit not like the truth?

The only way some freeloading piece of shit unwilling to do for him/herself has a right to healthcare is if YOU personally, without government mandate on others, provides it to them. No one has a right to something if it involves violating the rights of others in the process. If you're not willing to do that for others and provide them with what you claim they should have, they can do without.

The hardworking people willing to provide for themselves aren't the ATM for the freeloaders unwilling to do so.
 
Milagro said:
I think it's a good idea which would also stop a lot of high speed trading.

"These high-frequency traders ... make enormous amounts of money, billions and billions of dollars, and do nothing of any social value for the economy," said Len Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. "They're just kind of the modern-day equivalent of skimming pennies out of the till."

The idea of a tax on financial transactions is anything but new. Over the years, versions of it have been proposed by economists John Maynard Keynes and James Tobin. The United States actually had such a tax until 1966, as do numerous countries today. The European Union is expected to impose one as soon as next year.

Under the Sanders proposal, trades would be taxed at a rate of 0.5 percent for stocks and 0.1 percent for bonds. A stock trade of $1,000 would thus incur a cost of $5.

Burman believes the tax "would have mixed effects."

"On the one hand, it will raise the cost of investment," he said. "It's going to be a little bit more costly to get capital to businesses and others who have got useful things they want to do with it, and that's a cost to the economy.

"On the other hand, to the extent that it discourages unproductive trading ... that's a good thing for the economy."


http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/46646...ion-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that


Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
Click to expand...
What those who don't understand high frequency trading don't realize, is that these gimmicks tack their own fee onto almost every trade, in a fraction of a second. With more than 1 billion trades being made each day, a tiny $.05 fee per trade generates enough money to fund a variety of programs, with no real effect on the cost of the trade. In this instance, it could halve the cost of insurance premiums
 
Althea said:
What those who don't understand high frequency trading don't realize, is that these gimmicks tack their own fee onto almost every trade, in a fraction of a second. With more than 1 billion trades being made each day, a tiny $.05 fee per trade generates enough money to fund a variety of programs, with no real effect on the cost of the trade. In this instance, it could halve the cost of insurance premiums
Click to expand...

You just can't get past taxing one group to fund something for another group.
 
Althea said:
Actually, I understand those issues better than you do. This discussion is about the funding of health insurance.
Click to expand...

This discussion involves you trying to come up with ways for the government to tax certain groups in order to provide for the group that is unwilling to take responsibility for themselves. If you're going to say it, tell the truth.
 
Milagro said:
It is a right, well in a civilised country anyway. You're in the wrong century pal, stick your musket up your arse.
Click to expand...

where did the founders indicate that you, as an individual, have a RIGHT to the services and products of another individual? and how do you justify having to PAY for a right?
 
CFM said:
I've asked many of the bleeding hearts the same thing for years. There have been many of them that stated EXCUSES as to why certain elements in society (i.e. - those that have more income/wealth than the bleeding hearts think they should have) should be forced to fund what they support. I have yet to find one that, when posed with the option of funding it like you say, was willing to do that to prove they care as much as their words claim they care.
Click to expand...

actions do speak louder than mere words
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top