Originally Posted by Guest;102***0

Picking fly specs out of the pepper!

The point being that some people think that the constitution says that anybody should be able to have any gun or ammo that they want. Others think it can and should be sanely limited. Is outlawing this type of ammo reasonable? I don't know. But I do know that we have always had limits on our rights, and we will continue to have limits on our rights. And that's okay. To a certain extent. Is the U.S. going to crash and burn if I can't buy that certain ammo? I doubt it. Is this ammo even going to be outlawed? I doubt it. Is this entire discussion pointless? Probably.

Originally Posted by Guest

What part of the ACA is unworkable? It seems that a lot of people now have insurance who didn't before. What part is a disaster? The part where poor people have access to healthcare that they didn't before?

When you say that the "few" are paying for the "many", you realize that few means less than many, right? Because what we have right now is a couple of hundred million ("few" in your book) paying for around 10 million ("many" in your book).

You need to put the bong pipe down friend and wrap your brain around federal tax demographics. First, only half of the households in the US pay any income tax. Second, without looking it up, something on the order of 20% of households pay for 70% of the total tax bill. If that's not the few paying for the many, then I don't know what is.

Nearly all the new enrollees in Obamacare are Medicaid recipients. Just more drain on the already bankrupt federal coffer. Should we buy them a house, furnish it, provide food and utilities also? How about a vehicle and clothing while we're at it? Wait a minute, all of these programs already exist. Lip balm... that's something I bet we don't force tax payers (your neighbors) to buy for the slackers. We need to start a national campaign against chapped lips! Some people can't afford lip balm and that's just NOT FAIR!

Originally Posted by Guest

... we still lag SO far behind the standards set in other countries.

That gave me a hearty belly chuckle - thanks!

Yep, lots of desperate Americans fleeing to "other countries" for their fantastic health care! OMG... the US has the most advanced health care on the planet, bar none. Get an education, get a job, and buy health insurance. How difficult is this? Why should I pay for YOUR health policy? GET A JOB like the rest of us!

Something that still confounds me is even if you now have health insurance how does that help with the high deductibles they policies carry? Sure you can get a free physical every year, but if you're just sick and need to go to the doctor, you are paying for that until you reach your $5000 deductible or whatever it is. So how does this help those that couldn't afford insurance to begin with?

Originally Posted by Guest

That gave me a hearty belly chuckle - thanks!

Yep, lots of desperate Americans fleeing to "other countries" for their fantastic health care! OMG... the US has the most advanced health care on the planet, bar none. Get an education, get a job, and buy health insurance. How difficult is this? Why should I pay for YOUR health policy? GET A JOB like the rest of us!

Just not even close to being true.... The US ranks LAST in Healthcare, among many of our European counterparts. For sure, we are the worlds most expensive healthcare system, by a very large margin. In addition, the US has one of the most unhealthy lifestyles and due to the cost of healthcare, many Americans don't have access....

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes

...and on the cost side:

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries

OK....lets try efficiency...

World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems | thepatientfactor.com

Originally Posted by Guest

You need to put the bong pipe down friend and wrap your brain around federal tax demographics. First, only half of the households in the US pay any income tax. Second, without looking it up, something on the order of 20% of households pay for 70% of the total tax bill. If that's not the few paying for the many, then I don't know what is.

First off, this is a debate about the ACA, not total taxes. And ACA-wise, the many are paying for the relative few. As evidenced by "only" 8-11 million people being immediately affected by King v. Burwell.

But you make a good point. The people most able to afford the cost pay the most taxes. That sounds like a good plan to me.
Would it be better if the poorest 20% paid the most taxes?
What do you think a good amount for the top 20% to pay would be?
Taxes are by design somewhat redistributive. That's the whole point. People in New Hampshire pay taxes that ultimately end up in Florida helping to repair hurricane damage. People in Utah pay taxes that ultimately end up in Iowa helping to repair tornado damage. People in Maine pay taxes that help secure the border in Arizona. That's the way taxes work.

Originally Posted by Guest

First off, this is a debate about the ACA, not total taxes. And ACA-wise, the many are paying for the relative few. As evidenced by "only" 8-11 million people being immediately affected by King v. Burwell.

But you make a good point. The people most able to afford the cost pay the most taxes. That sounds like a good plan to me.
Would it be better if the poorest 20% paid the most taxes?
What do you think a good amount for the top 20% to pay would be?
Taxes are by design somewhat redistributive. That's the whole point. People in New Hampshire pay taxes that ultimately end up in Florida helping to repair hurricane damage. People in Utah pay taxes that ultimately end up in Iowa helping to repair tornado damage. People in Maine pay taxes that help secure the border in Arizona. That's the way taxes work.

The IRS should be eliminated. Taxes should be filed on a postcard. This silly morass of THOUSANDS of pages of tax code needs a complete overhaul. Replace the income tax with either a flat tax OR sales tax. The current tax code exempts half the population and penalizes the other half's success with higher rates of confiscation as one becomes more successful. That is classic Marxism.

Success (through education, hard work, risking capital) should be incentivized and rewarded, not punished! The generous safety net in this country provides strong incentive to remain dependent on the handouts. These social safety nets should protect the "unable", not the "unwilling"!

As for healthcare in America - overall it could be much better, but we disagree on the fix. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm CERTAIN government is not! Can you imagine a single-payer disaster like the IRS making life or death decisions about anyone's care? The IRS targets republicans for audits, etc... NO WAY! You can bet death panels would target political opponents just like the IRS. 50% of calls to the IRS helpline result in incorrect answers and that's after multiple call attempts and hours on hold! What SANE person would want this incompetence brought to healthcare?... or anything else!

Originally Posted by Guest

The IRS should be eliminated. Taxes should be filed on a postcard. This silly morass of THOUSANDS of pages of tax code needs a complete overhaul. Replace the income tax with either a flat tax OR sales tax. The current tax code exempts half the population and penalizes the other half's success with higher rates of confiscation as one becomes more successful. That is classic Marxism.

Success (through education, hard work, risking capital) should be incentivized and rewarded, not punished! The generous safety net in this country provides strong incentive to remain dependent on the handouts. These social safety nets should protect the "unable", not the "unwilling"!

As for healthcare in America - overall it could be much better, but we disagree on the fix. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'm CERTAIN government is not! Can you imagine a single-payer disaster like the IRS making life or death decisions about anyone's care? The IRS targets republicans for audits, etc... NO WAY! You can bet death panels would target political opponents just like the IRS. 50% of calls to the IRS helpline result in incorrect answers and that's after multiple call attempts and hours on hold! What SANE person would want this incompetence brought to healthcare?... or anything else!

As for the healthcare portion of your post....what does that say about us as Americans? That is just pathetic!

we've been talking about border security...that door opens OUT too, if it's so bad here...

Originally Posted by Guest

You need to put the bong pipe down friend and wrap your brain around federal tax demographics. First, only half of the households in the US pay any income tax. Second, without looking it up, something on the order of 20% of households pay for 70% of the total tax bill. If that's not the few paying for the many, then I don't know what is.

Nearly all the new enrollees in Obamacare are Medicaid recipients. Just more drain on the already bankrupt federal coffer. Should we buy them a house, furnish it, provide food and utilities also? How about a vehicle and clothing while we're at it? Wait a minute, all of these programs already exist. Lip balm... that's something I bet we don't force tax payers (your neighbors) to buy for the slackers. We need to start a national campaign against chapped lips! Some people can't afford lip balm and that's just NOT FAIR!

Of the more than one million subscribers of the ACA in Florida, none (zero) are Medicaid recipients because Gov Scott and the legislators did not expand Medicaid. This leaves another million uninsured. Our five billion dollars per year in federal tax dollars go to other states that did expand Medicaid, (like AZ, KY)

If the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, the ones who will suffer are residents in the reddest states and Florida, whose governors rejected the ACA for ideological reasons. This country will truly become states with good healthcare and insurance, and states with neither.

Originally Posted by Guest

Of the more than one million subscribers of the ACA in Florida, none (zero) are Medicaid recipients because Gov Scott and the legislators did not expand Medicaid. This leaves another million uninsured. Our five billion dollars per year in federal tax dollars go to other states that did expand Medicaid, (like AZ, KY)

If the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, the ones who will suffer are residents in the reddest states and Florida, whose governors rejected the ACA for ideological reasons. This country will truly become states with good healthcare and insurance, and states with neither.

NONSENSE!

Get a job and purchase insurance.

ACA is ALL about destroying healthcare and rising from the ashes of the INEVITABLE Obamacare implosion is single-payer. Then political death squads like the IRS.

Originally Posted by Guest

NONSENSE!

Get a job and purchase insurance.

ACA is ALL about destroying healthcare and rising from the ashes of the INEVITABLE Obamacare implosion is single-payer. Then political death squads like the IRS.

Get A Job. Sounds like a good title for a song.

Originally Posted by Guest

NONSENSE!

Get a job and purchase insurance.

ACA is ALL about destroying healthcare and rising from the ashes of the INEVITABLE Obamacare implosion is single-payer. Then political death squads like the IRS.

Do you mean single-payer socialized medicine, like Medicare for all? Sounds like a good idea.

Originally Posted by Guest

Do you mean single-payer socialized medicine, like Medicare for all? Sounds like a good idea.

Please don't tell me you reproduced...

Originally Posted by Guest

The IRS should be eliminated. Taxes should be filed on a postcard. This silly morass of THOUSANDS of pages of tax code needs a complete overhaul. Replace the income tax with either a flat tax OR sales tax. The current tax code exempts half the population and penalizes the other half's success with higher rates of confiscation as one becomes more successful. That is classic Marxism.

Success (through education, hard work, risking capital) should be incentivized and rewarded, not punished! The generous safety net in this country provides strong incentive to remain dependent on the handouts. These social safety nets should protect the "unable", not the "unwilling"!

The flat tax and a national sales tax are both just too regressive. The reason for a progressive tax code is that poorer people are less able to pay taxes AND buy food. An argument could be made that our tax code is TOO progressive, and that something flatter with fewer deductions and loopholes would be better, but to change to something that is as regressive as you suggest is just absurd. Confiscating is confiscating. The rich are in a better position to afford it.

I worked hard and achieved some modicum of success. I have never once in all my years of being taxed, felt that I was being punished. I've been able to provide for my family, plus help the less fortunate. Win-win.

My father who made it through the Depression always felt fortunate to make enough to have to pay taxes.

My relatives in Sweden pay high taxes but are carefree when it comes to education, healthcare, and retirement. The senior ones are a happy lot.