Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Everything Else / Re: Dear Mr. Trump #1
« Last post by Eagle on October 15, 2017, 02:51:35 am »
We are 20+ trillion in debt and something like this would drive our country to certain bankruptcy.

I guess there is no "proof" of this statement, but there are plenty of economists that would agree with this statement.  Here is some data compiled by Politifact discussing Bernie Sanders plan to provide medicaid for all.  Sanders says the plan would cost $1.38 Trillion per year to provide medical coverage for every American with no deductibles and no copays.  Here is what the US Government spent on Healthcare in 2016:

Medicare (over 65)   $612 billion
Tax deductions for health insurance  $272 billion
Medicaid (non-ACA expansion)    $203 billion
Medicare (under 65)   $80 billion
Medicaid (ACA expansion)  $64 billion
Veterans health care  $63 billion
ACA marketplace subsidies  $43 billion
ACA premium tax credits  $32 billion
Children’s Health Insurance Program  $13 billion
Total  $1.38 trillion

This is by no means providing care for everyone and on top of that, medicare DOES have a deductible and DOES charge a premium, as does the ACA, and other programs offered by the government.  So $1.38 trillion is being spent on a fraction of the population, and even with Obamacare, its reported that 29 million people STILL don't have health insurance, and even with insurance, many Americans cannot afford their medical expenses.  The $1.38 trillion also doesn't include all of the people who have health insurance through their employers.  As you can see, $1.38 trillion is a pipe dream number.

In 2016 Federal Goverment took in approximately $3.3 trilion in tax revenue.  Many economists believe that medicare for all would cost closer to $2.8 trillion per year which would not be sustainable with our current tax system.  So where does the additional money come from?  We can raise taxes, but thats only going to make it harder for everyone.  What about the rich?  Well you could tax them 100% and maybe cover the cost for a couple of years, but whats the point of making money if you have to give 100% of it away?  This is why socialism does not work.  (Cue the arguments here).  When everyone gets even distribution no matter if they sleep all day or work their ass off, it doesn't take long before the people working their asses off realize that they are working so the guy next to them can do nothing.  Productivity goes down, revenues go down, and the country eventually spirals into bankruptcy.  Just to prove my point, here are a list of former socialist countries that have failed:

Afghanistan (1978-1992)
Albania (1946-1992)
Angola (1975-1992)
Benin (1975-1990)
Bulgaria (1946-1990)
Cambodia (1975-1989)
Congo (1975-1992)
Czechoslovakia (1946-1990)
Ethiopia (1974-1991)
East Germany (1949-1990)
Hungary) (1949-1989)
North Korea 1948-1992
Mongolia (1924-1990)
Mozambique (1975-1990)
Poland (1945-1989)
Romania (1947-1989)
Somalia (1969-1991)
Soviet Union (1922-1991)
North Vietnam (1945-1975)
South Yemen (1967-1990)
Ukraine (1919-1991)
Yugoslavia (1945-1992)
Algeria (1963-1989)
Burma (1962-1988)
Cape Verde (1975-1992)
Egypt (1958-2007)
Iraq (1968-2003)
Libya (1969-2011)
Madagascar (1975-1992)
Sudan (1973-1985)
Syria (1963-2012)

Currently Venezuela is in the process of failing, Greece has been failing but is getting propped up by the EU.

Do you know more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court?

Did the ACA mandate pass the supreme court?  Yes. But not unanimously, and there are some problems now because of the way they did it.

The issue is simple: When the Senate adopted its own bill, installed it inside the shell of a separate and unrelated House bill, called it the Affordable Care Act and passed it, it created a long list of “fees” and “penalties” for Americans to pay.  But the John Roberts-led Supreme Court, recognizing the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to force people to buy consumer products, turned the “fees” and “penalties” into “taxes.”

However, the Constitution requires all tax measures be initiated in the House, not the Senate.  In addition, the Judicial Branch of the government is charged with "interpreting" the law, not creating new law - that is for the legislative branch.  In recent years we have seen over and again where the Judicial branch is overstepping its bounds to create law with rulings.

Here is Justice Scalia's dissent (since he was a member of the supreme court I'll consider him an expert on the constitution).

Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent.

We all know government run programs are wasteful, full of fraud and abuse, and provide subpar service.

I wasn't able to find anything online that I would say is empirical evidence to be able to compare the two.  However, here is a simple truth:  the private sector is in it to make money and if they aren't making money they will either go out of business or find something else to do.  The government does not have to make money, and if they go over budget they just increase the deficit and raise taxes. 

The private sector also has to deal with competition, custom satisfaction, market demand and many other factors to stay in business.  The government doesn't have to meet those same demands.  If the government has control of something and you have to go through them, there is no other alternative.  I hate going to the DMV because it is the most inefficient bureaucracy I have ever encountered.  However, there is no other alternative to purchasing license plates, so I have to put up with the long lines, cranky employees, and limited seating for the waiting area.  On the flip side, if McDonald's doesn't satisfy me, I can go across the street to Burger King, Hardees, or any number of places. 

This is why Trump wants to open up the health insurance market to be a nation-wide competition between the insurance companies.  Currently, we are limited to certain companies and plans based on where we live.  If the market were opened up nationally, we would see these companies having to work harder for our business through better pricing, more options for plans, better customer service, etc.  It just makes sense. 

So in conclusion on this point, even if there is waste, fraud and abuse within a private sector organization, it doesn't really matter because it just comes out of the total profits at the end of the day.  But in the government, it is tax payer dollars that are being wasted and therefore directly costs us more and we don't have the option to look elsewhere. 

Everything Else / Re: Dear Mr. Trump #1
« Last post by Tig on October 13, 2017, 11:15:24 pm »
All worth debating, tricky topic. But Trump's bypassed that debate entirely, via the same kind of executive order he condemned Obama for.

We are 20+ trillion in debt and something like this would drive our country to certain bankruptcy.
Source (for underlined part)?

Even though the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the health care mandate, THAT is unconstitional.
Do you know more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court?

We all know government run programs are wasteful, full of fraud and abuse, and provide subpar service.
That's a common belief, but I challenge you to provide empirical evidence that state-run healthcare is more wasteful, less effective, or is associated with more fraud and abuse than healthcare run by private corporations.
CoD4 / Re: Why cant i change my name?
« Last post by Tig on October 13, 2017, 10:50:55 pm »
If you're signed in to Steam, it'll use your Steam name even if you don't have the Steam version of CoD4. Not a fan of this myself and don't know why it is that way. If anyone knows of a way to change how that works I'm all ears, but I'm guessing it's locked in and related to anti-cheat measures in 1.8.
CoD4 / Re: Why cant i change my name?
« Last post by Sharky on October 13, 2017, 06:10:22 pm »
Nevermind now its working with Sharky all by itself?
CoD4 / Re: Why cant i change my name?
« Last post by Sharky on October 13, 2017, 06:04:53 pm »
Mine is stand alone didn't buy it trough steam I have steam but nothing on it for games and I never have it on.
CoD4 / Re: Why cant i change my name?
« Last post by Eagle on October 13, 2017, 04:31:49 pm »
So just out of curiosity, what if you didn’t purchase the game through steam?
Everything Else / Re: Dear Mr. Trump #1
« Last post by Eagle on October 13, 2017, 04:23:37 pm »
I guess I should weigh in from the other side.  Health care/health insurance is not a right, but a privilege. There is no place in the constitution that guarantees every American the right to health care.  Just as there is not a right to have a car, own a house, have a cell phone, or even a right to food.  All of those things cost money and those who have more money obviously will have better things, better health care, better car, better house, better phone, better food. 

Our country is not designed and does not operate like others that have free government health care.  For one, the health business is a huge profit making business and because of the costs, our country cannot afford to provide free health care for all.  ACA was designed to eventually fail and become a single payer plan.  We are 20+ trillion in debt and something like this would drive our country to certain bankruptcy.

Even though the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the health care mandate, THAT is unconstitional.  Forcing citizens to purchase something is 100% wrong. Just as the government cannot force is to buy a house, a car, a cell phone or anything else, (they got away with this by calling it a tax), now if you DONT buy this, you are taxed.  I am fortunate enough to have employer health care through my spouse, but for many Americans who don’t have that luxury, purchasing insurance is super expensive and with the high deductibles doesn’t provide much.

By forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, that has dramatically raised the costs.  You can’t buy house insurance AFTER your house is on fire and you can’t buy car insurance AFTER you have a wreck.  The definition of insurance is purchasing protection against future events. The insurance market makes money by calculating the risks and pricing accordingly.  This is also a money making business and does not work if there is no profit.

We all know government run programs are wasteful, full of fraud and abuse, and provide subpar service.  The VA is a good example of government run healthcare, the department of education is a good example of another government run program.  In both cases, private entities by far exceed the level of service and outcome. 

I have NO ISSUE with programs to assist those who cannot afford health care on their own, such as Medicare, Medicaid, community health clinics, etc.  But a blanket law forcing everyone to purchase something they don’t want, that raises the costs for everyone, and gives the government more power to dictate what we can or can’t have is not the right direction. 
CoD4 / Re: Why cant i change my name?
« Last post by Giant on October 13, 2017, 12:16:54 pm »

1.8 uses the name that is on your Steam. You have to change the name on Steam or log out so you can use the name you want.
CoD4 / Why cant i change my name?
« Last post by Sharky on October 13, 2017, 12:06:59 pm »
Hey all now that the servers are 1.8 I cant seem to change my name ? I play other servers and its Sharky but when I join RE its a name I haven't used in years.
Everything Else / Dear Mr. Trump #1
« Last post by Tig on October 13, 2017, 10:00:06 am »
Well Mr. Trump, I shouldn't be surprised by your recent executive order. After all, you've been equally hypocritical when it comes to the time you spend golfing and taking taxpayer-funded vacations after chiding President Obama for doing the same.

PolitiFact: Trump Plays More Golf

But it's not your hypocrisy that caught me off-guard. It's that you have now bypassed not only the democratic process but the clear wishes of the American people; a clear majority has disapproved of every repeal effort made so far. Why do you think Congress isn't getting it done? It's because they got lambasted by their constituents back home, who actually have to deal with the fallout when the state fails in its function of providing for the general welfare (a qualification for taxing power BTW).

Seeing the best in people has done a lot more good in my life than cynicism, and we can't get anywhere if we don't start from a position of good faith. So while many of my fellow Americans think you're an asshole, Mr. Trump, I believe you're genuinely doing what you believe to be right. But I also think your history (and tweets) suggests a tempestuous nature that makes you ill-suited to good decision making.

I don't think you're even aware of how much you're attacking things Obama did just because he did them, not on their merits. The Iran Deal is another good example. But back to the ACA, what is your reasoning behind this? Is it about the overall costs? Let's look past campaign BS: the purpose of the economy is to facilitate the exchange of resources in a way that maximizes society's happiness. That's the heart of the entire fucking thing.

I know you've never personally had to neglect your own healthcare because you couldn't afford it, but I have. And when I did, it cost me more in the long run. That means I was less productive, paid less taxes, contributed less to society, and was less happy in the long run. Purely from a pragmatic point of view, it is ignorant and foolish not to advocate for taking care of the masses from the get-go so they don't become a burden later.

If you really want America to be great, start doing things that are right, not just things that feel good.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10