PsyOps
Pixelated
I refuse to think of people that are receiving something for doing nothing from people that doing something at the force of government, as 'winners'.
Affected by Obamacare?
- Thread starter Sparx
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
We're talking about not just people who are going to get something for nothing but, also all the corporations and other favored partners who will be picked to be BIG winners and provide a little service, a little product, and get paid but HUGE for it.
Proud of it??? Why are you assuming I am even for it? I agree with some of the more popular parts of it but I think those parts could have been accomplished much differently. What I have seen though, and you are correct that corporate interests have and will make it a bigger mess. I do feel most of the increased costs and lower benefits I hear about are because of greed and not a direct effect of the ACA.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
It's not greed! It is simply profit motive. If you agree with the obvious, that the government can not, no matter how well intentioned, deliver goods and services cheaper and better than a for profit model the, that leaves us with more obvious; the government doing so WILL create ENORMOUS waste and corporate interests will be all too happy to lap it up. At the expense of us all.
You can 'feel' otherwise but, that is to argue that the federal government can do what it can't; deliver goods and services cheaper and better than a competitive for profit model.
:shrug:
If it's not greed then what amount of profit do you feel is the limit before you cross over into greed?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I'm a 'land of many kings' kinda guy. If you don't create a system where someone CAN win it all, (Too Big To Fail) then, it takes care of itself.
Companies, it used to be understood, had an obligation to serve their community. Especially small ones. That changed under Clinton with GOP help. That was where it became possible to become hyper rich, everything and everyone be damned.
So, I don't have a 'point in time' answer for you. My idea is more philosophical.
SG_Player1974
New Member
You ARE familiar with the Welfare system in theis country... RIGHT?
PsyOps
Pixelated
Wel What? Never heard of it.
somdfunguy
not impressed
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act:-Questions-and-Answers-on-Over-the-Counter-Medicines-and-Drugs
Basically you can use the card anywhere but could be audited at any time. I used to withdraw $600 every quarter from my HSA card at one of the no fee ATMs. Of course I had EOBs to back it up.
Last edited:
How could there be a limit? Why should there be a limit? Who would impose a limit? How would they impose a limit? What country is this??
Meanwhile, Obamacare sure isn't having much effect on this:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/hospital-ceo-obamacare-has-not-reduced-er-visits/
PsyOps
Pixelated
Bill Gates was the most wealthy guy on the planet at one time. Did you consider him greedy? Is it the amount of money you have, or what you do with it/how you hold it in your heart?
The bigger question I'd like to ask is - Should greed be legislated? Are you really comfortable with the government telling us when you've earned enough?
Last edited:
The sad thing to me is that there are individuals on the planet who are "too big to fail". By that I mean they can stop earning completely and still live disgustingly wealthy for the rest of their life. Why do so many of these same people insist on not only earning more and more just to hoard it away and keep those who work for them in poverty?
Don't say it doesn't happen.
Don't say it doesn't happen.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Because being successful is the American dream. Part of that dream includes not being harrassed for that success.
So this concept of "disgustingly wealthy" that you and your fellow socialists have grabbed on to. What is the threshold for wealth being of the "disgusting" variety? Is there a definition somewhere? What drives your disdain for it?
Me...I want to be insanely wealthy. That's better.....right?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Hoard it???? See. This is a fundamental difference between market policy and central control policy. Most rich people SPEND money. Tons of it. So, it becomes a question of who better to spend it; rich gal on yet another $500,000 horse or the gummint?
I will never forget the luxury tax; yet another 'good intention' whereby rich people would, so the thinking, if you can call it that, goes, would be all too happy to pay an extra surcharge on their yachts and such.
It destroyed the boat building industry in New England. Destroyed it. Why? Well, gee. Maybe someone who could afford a million dollar boat didn't see the reasoning in paying $1,100,000 for one. So, they got one for $700,000, having already felt like they were paying a premium for a US boat, and found, gee wiz, it's worth it.
So, then, good intentions having put boat builders out of business then put them on welfare.
So, you go from lots of good paying, highly skilled jobs to more people on welfare. Either progressives are stupid or evil.
somdfunguy
not impressed
If "they" stop working, then a lot of other people lose their jobs. Do you have examples of "those" who work for "them" that are in poverty?
Sure, carry your money in a dump truck, just don't lay off the regular driver of the truck so you can save his cost to add to your load.
Yeah, we've all seen how well the "Trickle Down" economic plan works.
Yes, If it weren't for greed he would keep all his work domestic and not outsourcing it overseas. He might not be quite as greedy as the hardware manufacturers who have shipped ALL their jobs overseas but, yes.
No, greed shouldn't be legislated but what should be is stronger legal protection for American workers. THEN maybe unions wouldn't be as necessary as they are today.