"Obamacare"

[doubtingmerle]

Please read up on what a refundable tax credit is and how they work. They have maximum dollar values. With a health insurance tax credit, you would most likely have the dollar value of the credit vary according to income and number of dependents.

I don't see your answer. Once more: You proposed a refundable tax credit to people with low incomes who buy health insurance. Approximately how much would you give a person who is so poor he currently pays no taxes, but who takes out a $10,000 policy? $5? $10,000? That makes a huge difference.

I am not at all familiar with that part of the bill so I cannot speak to it.

I didn't ask if you are familiar with it. I asked if you agreed with it. Do you agree with providing payments up to 100% of the insurance premiums for the poorest people?

The bottom line is it is not a bill that was well written, as the CEO of Aetna pointed out.

We all agree it should be better. But do we continue to let 40,000 people die each year without health insurance before we rewrite it?

No one knows what the effects are going to be, and the onus is on employers to provide coverage when it is very likely that the bill could cause premiums to rise beyond their normal rate in the next few years. Do you think this is a wise thing to do in the current economy?

Oh, please. Employers have provided health insurance for decades, and they haven't gone bankrupt because of it. Employers providing health insurance is nothing new.

The alternative plan which I have presented here would remove the burden of healthcare from employers entirely. Without Obamacare looming on the horizon, employers would be more likely to hire. Wages could possibly increase. A decrease in unemployment would help government revenue and not to mention help the economy.

Many employers have stopped providing healthcare, but their businesses have not boomed as a result. So it is hard to see how the answer to the uninsured is to allow more businesses to drop people from coverage.

If employers stop giving healthcare, and real wages for most people are stagnate, how is the average man going to get healthcare?

In other words, remove the climate of fear that Obama has created in the marketplace.

Have you forgotten the crash of 2008, and the fear that overwhelmed the economy during the previous administration?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't understand how in my post next post how you got that I was then saying I did not think it was an assault on my religious freedom (?).

Sir, in post #229 you copied back this that I had written:

Many Mennonites are opposed to military spending of any kind. It is a violation of their religious beliefs to spend money on bombers. If government funded birth control must be stopped because it violates your beliefs, must government funded military spending be stopped because it violates a Mennonite's religious beliefs? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying stop all military spending now? If not, why must the government honor your religious beliefs but not the beliefs of the Mennonite? Are you somehow more special than Mennonites?

And Amish are opposed to use of electricity. OK, is it a violation of their religious freedom to have electricity in government offices? If government funded birth control must be stopped because it violates your beliefs, must government funded electric lighting be stopped because it violates the Amish religious beliefs? Are you saying stop all electric lighting in government offices now? If not, why must the government honor your religious beliefs but not the beliefs of the Amish? Are you somehow more special than the Amish?

What you do with your own money is up to you. What the government does with its money is up to the people as a whole who should be deciding. But we cannot possibly run the government in a way that avoids every single thing that violates the religious beliefs of a couple of Americans.

Fine, lets have a constructive discussion on which religions should be allowed to dictate government policy. The Amish? The Mennonites? The Pentecostals? The Seventh Day Adventists? The Catholics? The Muslims? The Hindus? Please tell me which religious groups should have the authority to force the government to do what they want regardless of what everybody else wants.

I contend that no religious group should have that authority. All should have a say, and rational people should listen to all groups, but no group should be given absolute veto power over the will of the people.

Your constructive response to this issue is welcome.​

In that section that you quoted back to me, I explained why nobody should be able to declare that what the government does with its money is a violation of his personal freedom of religion. You responded directly in post 229, "The points on the religious freedoms of different groups are valid" (emphasis added). OK, if you said my point was valid, then I assumed you thought my point was valid.

OK, so it shouldn't have been a big surprise to you that I thought you thought my point was valid.

And yes, I see further that you now insist that if the government spends money on something your religion doesn't want, that this would be a violation of your religious freedom. But if the government spends money on something another religion doesn't want, well, you seem to have no comment on whether you think that expenditure is a violation of their freedom of religion.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It is far more complicated than that. Lots of acute emergencies leave lasting consequences, or at the very least require quite a bit of follow-up. For example, someone with an embolic small bowel infarct that survives because of emergent surgery will be on anticoagulants the rest of their life. If the patient was uninsured, should the surgeons not have bothered to save the patient's life? After all, they'll need medications for the rest of their life.

I do not think I am being clear enough I am talking like cancer treatments and the like Medication (although yes high I take the stuff) is cheaper than being on machines cancer treatments ECT. or maybe we could do it a bit like insurance us run now. Not the same but kinda where you have to pay part of out (if you do not have other insurance. For example, some insurance pays ALL of preventive care but only part of the other ( keep in mind with medication too that it is monthly sometimes quarterly yearly ECT meaning it is cheaper than day after day high treatment.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I do not think I am being clear enough I am talking like cancer treatments and the like Medication (although yes high I take the stuff) is cheaper than being on machines cancer treatments ECT. or maybe we could do it a bit like insurance us run now. Not the same but kinda where you have to pay part of out (if you do not have other insurance. For example, some insurance pays ALL of preventive care but only part of the other ( keep in mind with medication too that it is monthly sometimes quarterly yearly ECT meaning it is cheaper than day after day high treatment.

So you think if someone gets cancer but they're uninsured, they shouldn't be given chemotherapy if they can't pay out of pocket for it?

Just trying to get some clarity from you.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Many Mennonites are opposed to military spending of any kind. It is a violation of their religious beliefs to spend money on bombers. If government funded birth control must be stopped because it violates your beliefs, must government funded military spending be stopped because it violates a Mennonite's religious beliefs? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying stop all military spending now? If not, why must the government honor your religious beliefs but not the beliefs of the Mennonite? Are you somehow more special than Mennonites?

Good question.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So you think if someone gets cancer but they're uninsured, they shouldn't be given chemotherapy if they can't pay out of pocket for it?

Just trying to get some clarity from you.

They should help pay a part of it if they are ALL can even if it is five or 10% of the total cost.

 

[MarkSB]

Good question.

And one I already answered, but for some reason he keeps asking it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am not at all familiar with that part of the bill so I cannot speak to it. All I know is that it is a bill that could very well increase insurance premiums.

Then, perhaps it would be a good idea to become familiar with the Obamcare plan that you are critiquing, yes? You could start your study here: Timeline of the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov

The alternative plan which I have presented here would remove the burden of healthcare from employers entirely.

That is your alternative? How will "removing" the burden from employers help the situation? Employers have always been free to not provide coverage to employees. And your solution is to just stick with this existing system?

I thought you said you cared about the plight of the uninsured. How can you say you care, and then suggest a plan that says to stick with the miserable system we have had, with only a few suggestions that would at most reduce healthcare costs only a few percent. (Of course, if your "refundable tax credits" are huge that would help, but you haven't given a hint as to how big you want those to be.)

Without Obamacare looming on the horizon, employers would be more likely to hire. Wages could possibly increase.

Wages could possibly increase, huh?

Real wages for the bottom 99% have gone nowhere for years. But you say if we only repeal Obamacare and then let employers drop our insurance plans, wages could possibly increase?

Uh, if I am going to lose my employer sponsored plan, don't I need more than a "Wages could possibly increase" promise before I get onboard with your plan?

 

[doubtingmerle]

And one I already answered, but for some reason he keeps asking it.

I see. And when you answered it, which way did you answer it? Did you say that voting for military spending assaults the Mennonite's personal freedom of religion and is therefore wrong? Or did you say voting for government military spending is not an assault on his personal religious freedom, and is therefore permissible?

 

[MarkSB]

I don't see your answer. Once more: You proposed a refundable tax credit to people with low incomes who buy health insurance. Approximately how much would you give a person who is so poor he currently pays no taxes, but who takes out a $10,000 policy? $5? $10,000? That makes a huge difference.

You don't actually expect an entire refund schedule laid out do you?

I'm also not sure what you mean when you keep saying "take out a $10,000 policy." When a dollar figure is stated in that manner it typically means that $10,000 is the maximum pay out of the policy. Your premiums are what would be counted toward a tax credit.

I didn't ask if you are familiar with it. I asked if you agreed with it. Do you agree with providing payments up to 100% of the insurance premiums for the poorest people?

Yes and no. If people fall upon hard times I think it is good to be given a safety net. But it is also not good to encourage dependence upon government.

In the end it would depend on what you define as being the "poorest of the poor."

 

[MarkSB]

I see. And when you answered it, which way did you answer it? Did you say that voting for military spending assaults the Mennonite's personal freedom of religion and is therefore wrong? Or did you say voting for government military spending is not an assault on his personal religious freedom, and is therefore permissible?

I answered the last 2 questions in the paragraph illuminati posted. If you've forgotten the answers I gave you can go back and find them again.

As to your question, I have never voted specifically for military spending so it is a moot point. But if I did vote, specifically for the US to attack a neighbor without just cause, and that attack involved the targeting and killing of innocent civilians, and against the protests of a Mennonite community I voted to take their money to fund such a war - yes I would say that thier rights are being violated.

If said military spending was only to build a military defense for our country, or to defend or launch an attack against hostiles; then no I would say their rights are not being violated - for by the U.S. Constitution the federal government has been given the right to raise and maintain an army for such purposes, and as citizens of the United States the Mennonites would then have to understand that they are bound by that document.

So you may see, the main difference I see between routine defense spending and the mandate that is imposed by Obamacare, is that one is constitutional, and the other is not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You don't actually expect an entire refund schedule laid out do you?

Correct, I don't expect that.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you keep saying "take out a $10,000 policy." When a dollar figure is stated in that manner it typically means that $10,000 is the maximum pay out of the policy. Your premiums are what would be counted toward a tax credit.

I meant that he takes out a policy for which he needs to pay $10,000 premiums every year.

Do you agree with providing payments up to 100% of the insurance premiums for the poorest people?

Yes and no.

Let me guess. Are you a politician?

If people fall upon hard times I think it is good to be given a safety net. But it is also not good to encourage dependence upon government.

Good guiding principles, I agree. Now can you answer the question?

In the end it would depend on what you define as being the "poorest of the poor."

OK, let's say minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, which is about $15K per year. This man wants to take out a health insurance policy for his family but the premiums are $10K per year. How much do you suggest the government should pay him in a refundable tax credit?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If said military spending was only to build a military defense for our country, or to defend or launch an attack against hostiles; then no I would say their rights are not being violate.

Aha! So if the government uses the Mennonite's tax money to finance something the Mennonite opposes for religious reasons (build military defense), you do not think that a violation of his personal religious freedom.

But if the same government uses your tax money to finance something you oppose for religious reasons (certain birth control), you think that is a violation of your personal religious freedom.

I will let the jury decide if that is a double standard. I rest my case.

 

[MarkSB]

Let me guess. Are you a politician?

Lol. Fortunately, no.

Good guiding principles, I agree. Now can you answer the question?

OK, let's say minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, which is about $15K per year. This man wants to take out a health insurance policy for his family but the premiums are $10K per year. How much do you suggest the government should pay him in a refundable tax credit?

The reason why I hesitate to answer such a question is it is one that must consider many details, and take many variables into account. It is also a question that more than likely requires information which I have no access to or do not have the time to assess.

I will say that the amount of the credit would have to be tailored to the federal budget, to ensure that it would not substantially drive up the deficit or become unsustainable. On the other hand, it would also have to be an amount that is substantial enough to encourage a fair amount of uninsured americans to buy insurance.

Other factors to be considered apart from the income level of the applicant might be age and the presence of disabilities or a prexisting condition.

In other words, way too many details to hash over. Sorry, but I'm a very meticulous person and am not just going to throw a number out there.

I think the main appeal of such a credit is that it would provide people with an incentive to buy insurance without taking the decision away from them.

Here's a good webpage that describes the advantages of changing the tax code in regards to health care. There's also a lot of interesting information about health insurance in the US:

How does the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance work?

 

[MarkSB]

If said military spending was only to build a military defense for our country, or to defend or launch an attack against hostiles; then no I would say their rights are not being violate.

Aha! So if the government uses the Mennonite's tax money to finance something the Mennonite opposes for religious reasons (build military defense), you do not think that a violation of his personal religious freedom.
​

But if the same government uses your tax money to finance something you oppose for religious reasons (certain birth control), you think that is a violation of your personal religious freedom.

I will let the jury decide if that is a double standard. I rest my case.

Talk about taking things out of context. Let me guess, are you a politician?

 

[doubtingmerle]

MarkSB, I am still waiting to see a substantial solution to the problem of the uninsured from you. You could, of course, support Obamacare with perhaps some changes, but you refuse to do that. Previously we have shown why your other suggestions do little to address the problem. Your one point that might address part of the problem is your idea of refundable tax credits to the poor, but you refuse to tell us how big you want these credits to be. What if a person makes $15K per year and needs $10K to insure his family. How much will your proposal credit this man if he gets health insurance? $500? $10,000? Can you see how it is a complete joke to tell this man that if only he will buy a policy for $10K, the government will refund him $500? There is no way he can afford the $9500 balance, so he will go without insurance.

Unless you plan to have the government offer this man close to the $10,000 he needs for insurance, the man will not benefit from your program. But you have not told us if you propose payments to this man closer to $10,000 or to $500.

Here is your latest response:

The reason why I hesitate to answer such a question is it is one that must consider many details, and take many variables into account. It is also a question that more than likely requires information which I have no access to or do not have the time to assess.

I will say that the amount of the credit would have to be tailored to the federal budget, to ensure that it would not substantially drive up the deficit or become unsustainable. On the other hand, it would also have to be an amount that is substantial enough to encourage a fair amount of uninsured americans to buy insurance.

Other factors to be considered apart from the income level of the applicant might be age and the presence of disabilities or a prexisting condition.

In other words, way too many details to hash over. Sorry, but I'm a very meticulous person and am not just going to throw a number out there.

I think the main appeal of such a credit is that it would provide people with an incentive to buy insurance without taking the decision away from them.

Which is a complete evasion of the question. Would you or would you not propose that the government should pay enough to this man that he will become likely to buy insurance? If he doesn't end up with insurance, your proposal does not fix the problem.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Talk about taking things out of context.

OK, let's discuss "taking things out of context". It is wrong to take things out of context. That is why I do not do that.

Now back to the post you responded to. I had written:

Aha! So if the government uses the Mennonite's tax money to finance something the Mennonite opposes for religious reasons (build military defense), you do not think that a violation of his personal religious freedom.

But if the same government uses your tax money to finance something you oppose for religious reasons (certain birth control), you think that is a violation of your personal religious freedom.
​

And that is exactly what you have said here. If that in any way differs with your views, please let us know where it is mistaken.

 

[MarkSB]

OK, let's discuss "taking things out of context". It is wrong to take things out of context. That is why I do not do that.

Taking things out of context means that you are cherry picking your quotes (omitting parts and only including the parts which support your point). And yes you did do that. I gave an explanation as to my reasoning but you left it out.

 

[MarkSB]

Which is a complete evasion of the question. Would you or would you not propose that the government should pay enough to this man that he will become likely to buy insurance? If he doesn't end up with insurance, your proposal does not fix the problem.

No its not. It simply says that its a question I cannot or do not have the resources to answer. I'm not a politician and I'm not going to pretend to be one. I simply put forth an alternative idea, I don't see why you feel the need to grill me over the details.

Since you seem to like interrogating others - how about some questions on the Obama plan. You do realize that the plan uses 10 years of taxes to fund 6 years of spending, do you not? That is borrows from SSI and double counts some of its figures in order to make it appear as though the bill will not increase the deficit?

My point remains that while your cause may be a noble one, it does no good to the sick if in seeking to help them you drive up deficits and put the economy at greater peril. So my question to you is, how are you going to pay for all of this?

As I previously stated, I believe the alternative that I have put forth offers a bit more flexibility.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Taking things out of context means that you are cherry picking your quotes (omitting parts and only including the parts which support your point). And yes you did do that. I gave an explanation as to my reasoning but you left it out.

Sir, in this post I note that you did not copy back my entire post!

If responding while omitting parts of the previous post is "taking out of context" then you just did what you condemn!

But sorry, there is no rule that says you need to copy all of another person's post before you can respond.

Is there anything at all in the context of your post that makes your statement, "If said military spending was only to build a military defense for our country, or to defend or launch an attack against hostiles; then no I would say their rights are not being violated" not mean that you think the government can spend money on defense without violating their rights?

Do you or do you not think the government can spend money on military without being guilty of violating the personal religious rights of Mennonites who oppose all military spending?

If you and I agree that this is not a violation of the Mennonite's personal religious rights, then your statements that explain why you agree with me need not be echoed back. I can simply state that you agree with me on this without repeating your entire argument.