Cover Oregon

[blazerboy30]

You actually ARE a prick. What is your problem with me. Do you feel you need to constantly judge me or critique me? I have a $300 car payment and a $1500 a month health insurance payment. I saw this and am admittedly not up to speed on all the new healthcare changes and options. So I mention I'd like to find out more info on it and you come on here and bash me.

Nate, thanks for kinda' having my back whether you meant to or not. Please put me on ignore......tired of reading your bullshit.

You want to find out how other tax payers can subsidize your life more. That makes it our business.

Do you have a cell phone? Does your wife? You have already said you drive an Audi. Do you have a tablet? Internet? A computer? Etc, etc.

You made those choices and then want to know how we can help pay for your health insurance. You have a set amount of income, like we all do. The fact that you've purchased all the non-essential items and then get subsidized for health insurance essentially means that we are now subsidizing your Audi, cell phone, internet, etc, etc.

You claim to "love" Obama, but don't have a clue about his policies, including this healthcare bill, which is pretty huge. So my point still stands that you are a great example of why our system is not going to work long term.

For the above reasons, it seems to me that YOU'RE the prick, if you want to start calling names.

 

[maxiep]

there is some forced communism simply by living in the US though, disregarding the ACA.

There's a big difference between funding national defense, infrastructure and a social safety net and telling you what you can and cannot eat or how much exercise you can get.

 

[blazerboy30]

there is some forced communism simply by living in the US though, disregarding the ACA.

That's because people keep voting for more and more of it due to ignorance and being lied to by politicians. It isn't a natural progression.

 

[THE HCP]

HCP, do you understand the point that was made here? It has nothing to do with you driving a nice car. It's that with the ACA, your lifestyle becomes the business of everyone that helps subsidize the health insurance of your family.

Your choices and your lifestyle is no one's business but your own. However, the government is making your decisions everyone's business. And it's not just the car you drive, but what you eat and how much exercise you get. That's the perniciousness of the ACA. It's not about "giving" you health care by forcing you to pay for an insurance policy you may or may not need. It's about exerting control over your life and making us communal.

There exist other alternatives to make your health care cost less expensive that have nothing to do with the government or anyone subsidizing you.

This is a very valid point and thanks for pointing it out to me. Didn't like the way this other guy put it out there.

 

[e_blazer]

You want to find out how other tax payers can subsidize your life more. That makes it our business.

Do you have a cell phone? Does your wife? You have already said you drive an Audi. Do you have a tablet? Internet? A computer? Etc, etc.

You made those choices and then want to know how we can help pay for your health insurance. You have a set amount of income, like we all do. The fact that you've purchased all the non-essential items and then get subsidized for health insurance essentially means that we are now subsidizing your Audi, cell phone, internet, etc, etc.

You claim to "love" Obama, but don't have a clue about his policies, including this healthcare bill, which is pretty huge. So my point still stands that you are a great example of why our system is not going to work long term.

For the above reasons, it seems to me that YOU'RE the prick, if you want to start calling names.

That's 100% bullshit, IMO. Those arguments have been and should continue to be a part of the national debate over healthcare. Once a government enacts laws, individuals can't be blamed for taking advantage of the programs. That's true for people who qualify for assistance in the form of healthcare or food stamps. It's also true for people on the other end of the spectrum who take advantage of tax credits and exemptions that are allowable under the law.

 

[Eastoff]

There's a big difference between funding national defense, infrastructure and a social safety net and telling you what you can and cannot eat or how much exercise you can get.

You have a point, and my arguments, I know, are very weak. But I would also like to point out that if America is a majority healthy and is productive longer, we all directly benefit from that, correct? Let's say that the US invests 12 years of education into every citizen (immigrants disregarded in the equation), and if people only live and work until they are 45 and then die of a heart attack, that is only a return of 27 years. But if people stay healthy and work until they are 65, that is an improvement of almost 100%. But maybe i'm going down a weird liberal totalitarian thought process.

 

[e_blazer]

You have a point, and my arguments, I know, are very weak. But I would also like to point out that if America is a majority healthy and is productive longer, we all directly benefit from that, correct? Let's say that the US invests 12 years of education into every citizen (immigrants disregarded in the equation), and if people only live and work until they are 45 and then die of a heart attack, that is only a return of 27 years. But if people stay healthy and work until they are 65, that is an improvement of almost 100%. But maybe i'm going down a weird liberal totalitarian thought process.

No, you're just supplying Maxie with fodder for a rant on education being provided by the private sector rather than the public.

 

[blazerboy30]

That's 100% bullshit, IMO. Those arguments have been and should continue to be a part of the national debate over healthcare. Once a government enacts laws, individuals can't be blamed for taking advantage of the programs. That's true for people who qualify for assistance in the form of healthcare or food stamps. It's also true for people on the other end of the spectrum who take advantage of tax credits and exemptions that are allowable under the law.

Certainly peoples' choices to take advantage of programs should be evaluated. Everybody's situation is different.

 

[blazerboy30]

You have a point, and my arguments, I know, are very weak. But I would also like to point out that if America is a majority healthy and is productive longer, we all directly benefit from that, correct? Let's say that the US invests 12 years of education into every citizen (immigrants disregarded in the equation), and if people only live and work until they are 45 and then die of a heart attack, that is only a return of 27 years. But if people stay healthy and work until they are 65, that is an improvement of almost 100%. But maybe i'm going down a weird liberal totalitarian thought process.

There is nothing wrong with trying to grow the pie. The problem comes from trying to redistribute the same size pie.

 

[e_blazer]

Certainly peoples' choices to take advantage of programs should be evaluated. Everybody's situation is different.

They should be evaluated in terms of whether the individuals actually meet the specified criteria for inclusion in the program. Overall trends should be analyzed to determine whether a program needs to be modified or junked. But beyond that, the decisions individuals make about what to do with their assets are not the public's business.

 

[maxiep]

But maybe i'm going down a weird liberal totalitarian thought process.

You answered your own question.

For the record, our inalienable rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of what you described conforms to those rights. Our lives are our own, not the government's.

 

[maxiep]

No, you're just supplying Maxie with fodder for a rant on education being provided by the private sector rather than the public.

LOL. I don't mind public schools (I send my son to one). However, I do believe in vouchers.

 

[blazerboy30]

They should be evaluated in terms of whether the individuals actually meet the specified criteria for inclusion in the program. Overall trends should be analyzed to determine whether a program needs to be modified or junked. But beyond that, the decisions individuals make about what to do with their assets are not the public's business.

Your first sentence and last sentence are contradictory.

 

[e_blazer]

No they're not. In the case of Cover Oregon, the individual's tax return is reviewed in order to determine whether they actually qualify for the income guidelines and other criteria for inclusion in the program. What they may choose to do with their after-tax dollars is not relevant to the question of whether they get included. Overall trends in what people are able to afford while they are under the plan may be of interest in looking at whether the income guidelines should be adjusted up or down, but other than that, what someone does with their money is their business.

 

[maxiep]

Is anyone getting the larger issue? Once we begin subsidizing an increasing amount of the population, all of our lives become all of our business. This progression is not accidental. It's a massive and intentional change of the philosophy of what it means to be a citizen of this country.

Getting back to the issue at hand, technically e_blazer is right, but philosophically blazerboy30 is right. Both are right and both are wrong and more importantly to the ruling class, they are divided. And that's the end goal, make no mistake about it.

 

[blazerboy30]

No they're not. In the case of Cover Oregon, the individual's tax return is reviewed in order to determine whether they actually qualify for the income guidelines and other criteria for inclusion in the program. What they may choose to do with their after-tax dollars is not relevant to the question of whether they get included. Overall trends in what people are able to afford while they are under the plan may be of interest in looking at whether the income guidelines should be adjusted up or down, but other than that, what someone does with their money is their business.

It's their business if they aren't asking to be subsidized. It's a choice people can make.

 

[blazerboy30]

Is anyone getting the larger issue? Once we begin subsidizing an increasing amount of the population, all of our lives become all of our business. This progression is not accidental. It's a massive and intentional change of the philosophy of what it means to be a citizen of this country.

Agreed.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But I would also like to point out that if America is a majority healthy and is productive longer, we all directly benefit from that, correct? Let's say that the US invests 12 years of education into every citizen (immigrants disregarded in the equation), and if people only live and work until they are 45 and then die of a heart attack, that is only a return of 27 years. But if people stay healthy and work until they are 65, that is an improvement of almost 100%.

I'll be the jerk to say it.

I'm more concerned with health care (that people couldn't otherwise afford) artificially prolonging life-spans to 95 while the government continues to provide services for those people. I think the country will benefit financially more from shorter life-spans than longer.

 

[Eastoff]

I'll be the jerk to say it.

I'm more concerned with health care (that people couldn't otherwise afford) artificially prolonging life-spans to 95 while the government continues to provide services for those people. I think the country will benefit financially more from shorter life-spans than longer.

I had a doctor in the LA area recently say the same thing. He thinks we're better off having smokers kill themselves.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's 100% bullshit, IMO. Those arguments have been and should continue to be a part of the national debate over healthcare. Once a government enacts laws, individuals can't be blamed for taking advantage of the programs. That's true for people who qualify for assistance in the form of healthcare or food stamps. It's also true for people on the other end of the spectrum who take advantage of tax credits and exemptions that are allowable under the law.

Well, that, and the law is supposed to make his $1500 cost something less.

 

[MarAzul]

I'll be the jerk to say it.

I'm more concerned with health care (that people couldn't otherwise afford) artificially prolonging life-spans to 95 while the government continues to provide services for those people. I think the country will benefit financially more from shorter life-spans than longer.

That's not so rough.

Dying when it is your time caused by events that you at least attempted to have some control over is far superior to having no control and the Government choosing when it is your time.

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of government health care. I have a problem with the execution. If anything, public education is an example of how government can't handle the oversight of something that we consider to be a universal right. Nobody questions whether every child should be able to go to school, but these days our public schools are spiraling further and further out of control. Huge student to teacher ratios and lower standards are pumping out some of the worst classes we've seen.

Why wouldn't this happen with public health care? High patient to doctor ratios and poor quality of health care seems to be very likely in this scenario. When people are talking about school vouchers so they can leave public school because of a low quality of education, definitely leads me to believe that we are making the same mistakes with Obamacare and programs like Cover Oregon.

 

[maxiep]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of government health care. I have a problem with the execution. If anything, public education is an example of how government can't handle the oversight of something that we consider to be a universal right. Nobody questions whether every child should be able to go to school, but these days our public schools are spiraling further and further out of control. Huge student to teacher ratios and lower standards are pumping out some of the worst classes we've seen.

Why wouldn't this happen with public health care? High patient to doctor ratios and poor quality of health care seems to be very likely in this scenario. When people are talking about school vouchers so they can leave public school because of a low quality of education, definitely leads me to believe that we are making the same mistakes with Obamacare and programs like Cover Oregon.

You're making the mistake of thinking the ACA is meant to provide quality health care.

 

[e_blazer]

It's their business if they aren't asking to be subsidized. It's a choice people can make.

Look, I was against Obamacare for all of the reasons that you and Maxie are stating. That said, it's the law of the land...at least for now...and I don't think it's right to ding people for taking advantage of the program if they qualify. This isn't a true free market society and virtually all of us take advantage of some form of government program that saves us money. If you own a house and take advantage of the write-off for home mortgage interest to lower your taxes does that mean that people who don't own a home should get to rag on you if you spend your subsidized tax savings on a new car or plasma TV? I don't see the difference between the two situations.

 

[e_blazer]

Is anyone getting the larger issue? Once we begin subsidizing an increasing amount of the population, all of our lives become all of our business. This progression is not accidental. It's a massive and intentional change of the philosophy of what it means to be a citizen of this country.

Getting back to the issue at hand, technically e_blazer is right, but philosophically blazerboy30 is right. Both are right and both are wrong and more importantly to the ruling class, they are divided. And that's the end goal, make no mistake about it.

I get what you're saying, Maxie, but I think the ship has long since sailed on government subsidies in their seemingly endless varieties. Now that healthcare is a part of what people expect government to provide them with, I don't know that you can push that genie back in the bottle. Of course, the bottle may eventually get smashed on the rock of government insolvency, but in the meantime the Democrats will have succeeded in buying themselves a lot of votes.

 

[maxiep]

I get what you're saying, Maxie, but I think the ship has long since sailed on government subsidies in their seemingly endless varieties. Now that healthcare is a part of what people expect government to provide them with, I don't know that you can push that genie back in the bottle. Of course, the bottle may eventually get smashed on the rock of government insolvency, but in the meantime the Democrats will have succeeded in buying themselves a lot of votes.

Of course it has. But I get to choose on which side I will be. I can be with the majority and accept things the way they are, or I can be a vocal minority. I am old enough, financially secure and no longer need to give a shit, so I can be part of the latter.

 

[e_blazer]

Of course it has. But I get to choose on which side I will be. I can be with the majority and accept things the way they are, or I can be a vocal minority. I am old enough, financially secure and no longer need to give a shit, so I can be part of the latter.

Far be it from me to try to deny you your right to rant. Actually, I rather enjoy your takes and generally find myself agreeing with you more often than not.

 

[maxiep]

Far be it from me to try to deny you your right to rant. Actually, I rather enjoy your takes and generally find myself agreeing with you more often than not.

Having a kid really changed me. I used to be much more of a Hobbsian , "Life is tough; I've got mine, screw everyone else" mindset. Now, I think about the future of this country, the future my son will inherit, and I shudder.

I have always wanted people to have hope, opportunity and have desired a meritocracy. However, what I see now is two worlds: A world where people are connected, that can obtain benefits based on who they know and the assets their previous generations have garnered; and a world where that is impossible.

It was difficult to make the jump from one world to the other, but it was possible with enough hard work. That bridge no longer exists. If I'm honest, I was born in one world and now live in the other. My son will be just fine. But I find the idea that future generations won't have the same opportunities I had--no matter their abilities--intolerable.

Bottom line, I want back the America in which I was raised, not this bastardized version of sclerotic Western Europe. And I will fight for it the rest of my days.

 

[mook]

Bottom line, I want back the America in which I was raised, not this bastardized version of sclerotic Western Europe. And I will fight for it the rest of my days.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican candidate for president, warned this fall that movement “up into the middle income is actually greater, the mobility in Europe, than it is in America.” National Review, a conservative thought leader, wrote that “most Western European and English-speaking nations have higher rates of mobility.” Even Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who argues that overall mobility remains high, recently wrote that “mobility from the very bottom up” is “where the United States lags behind.”

Link.

I think they fear becoming more like us than we fear becoming like them.

 

[mook]

Myself, having just spent 6 weeks in England I was pretty surprised at how many small-business types I met. Two of my wife's best friends' husbands were successful small business owners, and they seemed pretty optimistic about the future. Both had two kids under the age of 10. It never even occurred to either that this was somehow an impediment to them starting a business.

Meanwhile, my brother, who is very similar to these two guys, would never think of starting his own business because he's so desperate for health care for his own kids. He's a smart guy, but he works a pretty lowly job because it offers a decent health care plan.

I asked these guys (one owns an ad agency, the other a wedding photo business, both started about 10 years ago) if they thought it was particularly onerous to start a business there in terms of regulation. They shrugged and didn't really seem to understand the question.

Obviously, this is a small anecdote and hardly concrete proof. But I could definitely see myself starting a business there, just as I did here. And frankly, it might be less stressful.