Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (521004)	11/9/2012 2:59:00 AM
From: Sdgla	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793648

Re : I for one think that requiring EVERYBODY to have health insurance is a good thing. At some point you will learn that you can pass laws and try to control everybody... All to know avail. There will continue to be 20 to 30 million people sans HI even after Ocare is fully implemented. Only thing that will have changed is everybody that pays will be paying more and the crooks in gov will be making more and more $$'s to continue passing laws telling the taxpayers how to live their lives. Keep putting bureaucrats in place to solve problems..... It's so idiotic and yet the left keeps shoveling it.

To: RMF who wrote (521004)	11/9/2012 6:53:57 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793648

requiring EVERYBODY to have health insurance is a good thing ... A homeless guy on the street can go to an emergency room and get heart surgery and I have to pay for it? The homeless guy on the street isn't going to get himself a health insurance policy because he's "required" to. So no change there. Under Obamacare fewer people will have health insurance. Some reasons are: Some employers will decide to go with part timers with no benefits vs full timers with them. The layoffs to come - those folks won't have health insurance anymore. Since there will in time be no "discrimination" against people with pre-existing conditions some who carry health insurance now will decide they're saps for doing it. They'll decide it makes more sense to pay the tax and wait till they get a serious health condition and THEN walk in and sign up for a health insurance policy.

To: RMF who wrote (521004)	11/9/2012 12:20:01 PM
From: Neeka	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793648

A homeless guy on the street can go to an emergency room and get heart surgery and I have to pay for it? Yes.............that is exactly right. You don't really believe enacting Obamacare is all the sudden going to force a homeless person to go out and buy a hc policy do you? I'm here to tell you.........it isn't. A homeless person is never going to buy a hc policy because the govt will never give him enough money to afford one, and he won't get a job, otherwise he'd already have one. So you and me and all the other people in this country who work for a living (I'm assuming you work) will continue to pay for the homeless guy. He might stand a chance of getting a job if the govt would just get out of the way and let free enterprise work, but nooooooooooooo, the people of the United States have chosen socialism over free enterprise, so that isn't going to happen. Expect more unemployment and more people going on the dole as companies..........many, small business'..................including my own...............go out of business, or cut their workforce, and more people lose their jobs. A lot of people will voluntarily shut their down their business or quit their job (who wants to bust their butts only to see more and more of what they earn confiscated by the govt...............you'd have to be a real patsy to agree to that) and take it underground. If I were you I'd expect to see more out of work "homeless guys" than ever over the coming years. Homeless guys who still won't buy a health care policy because they will still get it for "free." Not to worry! As soon as enough Insurance companies go under because they just cannot afford to fulfill all of the bureaucratic mandates our dear leader and his cronies in congress have imposed upon them, big brother will ride to the rescue and we'll all have a govt (single payer) hc policy. (that was the intention all along btw.) Of course this will be very expensive............over 1 Trillion $ per yr.............so our dear leader and his cronies in congress will either have to impose more taxes to pay for it, and the suckers who actually employ people and produce a product, and every household in America regardless of income will bare the brunt of this inevitable new tax, or the hc panel will impose rationing............which is so much cheaper, and grandma and grandpa and the very sick can always just take a pill. Dear leader said so! youtube.com NG Isn't it going to be nice to have all of those bureaucrats running things? Pretty soon, no one will have to worry about anything..................big brother will take care of us all. Just think of it. There will be no need for anything other than what our beloved bureaucrats say we need! Free food, free hc, free housing, free daycare, free education, free transportation.........everything will be free. I suppose if we do find we have a need that isn't being fulfilled by govt bureaucracy there will be an "Office of Needs" where we can air our grievance? Maybe Bill Clinton can become its Czar? And lucky for us, no one will have to work and there will be no need for money. Why have money when everything is free? And for all those Americans who love socialism and all of its trappings, there are a couple of extra bonuses too. There will be no need for individuality because we'll all get to enjoy the same freeness. (new word.) And we'll have to get used to losing some of our liberties and freeness (haha there's that new word again) for the sake of Gaia and nature and animals and mankind. Energy might have to be rationed too you know. Thank goodness for the wind and the sun. Won't this all be so nice! ( I may be exaggerating a bit here and because I believe so strongly in the goodness of the American people, I don't believe they'll allow this, but the above scenario is a socialist goal. I have no doubt what so ever that Barack Obama and his cronies in congress believe in this goal..............for everyone but themselves.) A homeless guy on the street can go to an emergency room and get heart surgery and I have to pay for it? YEP!

To: RMF who wrote (521004)	11/11/2012 11:15:19 AM
From: i-node	13 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793648

>> A homeless guy on the street can go to an emergency room and get heart surgery and I have to pay for it? What, you think you're not going to pay for it under Obamacare?

To: RMF who wrote (521004)	11/11/2012 11:18:17 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793648

“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.” ? P.J. O'Rourke

To: RMF who wrote (521004)	11/11/2012 11:40:28 AM
From: Bonefish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793648

medical care in the US costs too much. need to trim the docs back, hospitals back, pharma back, lawyers back.

To: RMF who wrote (521004)	11/11/2012 12:12:42 PM
From: skinowski	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793648

I for one think that requiring EVERYBODY to have health insurance is a good thing ....and if you can't afford insurance, then it will be provided to you free by taxpayers who have more than you and therefore may not need as much. The government (in return for a large cut to cover its extended costs) will see to it that such wealth transfers will occur in every case. Like it does always and with everything. ...but anyway, what I'm curious about is - What if I want to be self insured? What if I am wealthy and can afford it? What if I'm not very wealthy, but am in the habit of traveling abroad, to cheap countries, for my tests and procedures? Should I still be forced to pay for something I do not intend to use? Would that not be highway robbery?

To: RMF who wrote (521004)	11/11/2012 12:12:42 PM
From: skinowski	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793648

I for one think that requiring EVERYBODY to have health insurance is a good thing ....and if you can't afford insurance, then it will be provided to you free by taxpayers who have more than you and therefore may not need as much. The government (in return for a large cut to cover its extended costs) will see to it that such wealth transfers will occur in every case. Like it does always and with everything. ...but anyway, what I'm curious about is - What if I want to be self insured? What if I am wealthy and can afford it? What if I'm not very wealthy, but am in the habit of traveling abroad, to cheap countries, for my tests and procedures? Should I still be forced to pay for something I do not intend to use? Would that not be highway robbery?

To: RMF who wrote (521004)	11/11/2012 12:12:43 PM
From: skinowski	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793648

I for one think that requiring EVERYBODY to have health insurance is a good thing ....and if you can't afford insurance, then it will be provided to you free by taxpayers who have more than you and therefore may not need as much. The government (in return for a large cut to cover its extended costs) will see to it that such wealth transfers will occur in every case. Like it does always and with everything. ...but anyway, what I'm curious about is - What if I want to be self insured? What if I am wealthy and can afford it? What if I'm not very wealthy, but am in the habit of traveling abroad, to cheap countries, for my tests and procedures? Should I still be forced to pay for something I do not intend to use? Would that not be highway robbery?