Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Obamacare, Otherwise Known as The Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by msc View Post
    Why Americans Cant Have Universal Healthcare Like Europeans

    For example, Britain has a relatively well-regarded universal healthcare system that every citizen pays for through national income tax. The tax rate for income tax and National Health Insurance in the United Kingdom (England) in 2015-16 for all citizens earning between zero and 31,785, considered basic-rate (flat rate) taxpayers, is a whopping 20 percent of their entire income. It is a full 15 percent more than Americas middle class tax rate and would entail a 20 percent tax hike for 45 percent of Americans who pay nothing now.

    If a British citizen earns just one pence over that basic threshold, their income tax rate jumps to 40 percent up to 150,000. For income over that number the rate is 45 percent; all to cover the National Health plan administered solely by the government with a form of rationing.

    For a comparison, and one reason why many Democrats are reticent to go all-in to support enactment of single-payer in America, in 2015, 45 percent of Americans with earned income paid zero income tax. One cannot comprehend how nearly half of the population living in poverty and barely making it and then saddled with a 20 percent tax bill will embrace being poorer to have basic healthcare when they will be unable to eat or pay rent.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/...europeans.html
    While I obviously can't deny the figures I can be a bit more specific about how things work.
    Yes we have a higher tax rate but we also have an earnings threshold below which no tax is paid.
    https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourc...um%20threshold

    The first 11k of income is not taxed and only earnings over that are taxed at 20%.
    This may still seem like a lot to you but it's a lot better than just saying we all pay 20% tax.
    When you bear in mind that the minimum wage is going up to 7.50 next year and a 40 hour a week job will give an annual income of 15,600 that means only paying tax on 4,600 which is 920 a year.

    Again, you can decide what you think about that but that's how it works and that's how I work out my tax.

    As for the higher rates of tax this is more an issue of public perception rather than being about facts as there is no right or wrong tax scheme. The UK and Europe as a whole just has a more accepting populace (obviously some would prefer to pay less tax) when it comes to higher tax to pay for better public services.
    Last edited by PeterUK75; 11-25-2016, 04:30 AM.

    ?


    • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

      While I obviously can't deny the figures I can be a bit more specific about how things work.
      Yes we have a higher tax rate but we also have an earnings threshold below which no tax is paid.
      https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourc...um%20threshold

      The first 11k of income is not taxed and only earnings over that are taxed at 20%.
      This may still seem like a lot to you but it's a lot better than just saying we all pay 20% tax.
      When you bear in mind that the minimum wage is going up to 7.50 next year and a 40 hour a week job will give an annual income of 15,600 that means only paying tax on 4,600 which is 920 a year.

      Again, you can decide what you think about that but that's how it works and that's how I work out my tax.

      As for the higher rates of tax this is more an issue of public perception rather than being about facts as there is no right or wrong tax scheme. The UK and Europe as a whole just has a more accepting populace (obviously some would prefer to pay less tax) when it comes to higher tax to pay for better public services.
      So is 11k income un-taxable for everyone in all tax brackets, from the poorest to the richest? And is the 11k included in the gross income that puts you into the 40% bracket?

      How I'm reading this is that if someone makes 31k, they are taxed 20% on 20k. Is that right?

      I'm also trying to understand exactly how your vouchers translate to US deductions. That would make a large difference in how much each person/household contributes. Marriage, children, College payments?, etc.

      I can't imagine the standard of living that the middle class with have with these tax hikes on top of what we already pay.
      Last edited by msc; 11-25-2016, 05:07 AM.

      ?


      • Yep, it's a pretty simple idea and even millionaires have the first 11k tax free but obviously they hardly notice. You seem to have it bang on but I have to plead ignorance about vouchers as I'm a single bloke with no children so have no idea about what taxes families pay and the chances of me having a tax conversation with my parents is zero as I'm British and we don't do that sort of thing.
        Sorry about that.
        If you want to know more here a google link about our tax stuff but I have a feeling this will be a bit much just for a casual query about our tax situation.

        I can talk about university loans though as they are only repaid (unlike US student loans bankruptcy does erase the debt) if the student makes a certain amount of money and the loan is written off if the student reaches the age of 50 without having a qualifying income.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studen...United_Kingdom Please skip to the repayment section.

        I voted for the UK Lib Dems who said they opposed tuition fee's and then did a u-turn when they got into coalition.

        Unlike the US we don't have vast millions who pay zero tax.
        Last edited by PeterUK75; 11-25-2016, 01:56 PM.

        ?


        • At what point is taxation considered slavery? Where is that threshold? I mean, at 45%, nearly half your time is spent in service to the government? How much is enough?

          ?


          • Originally posted by Commodore View Post
            At what point is taxation considered slavery? Where is that threshold? I mean, at 45%, nearly half your time is spent in service to the government? How much is enough?
            For liberals, it's not about tax income, it's about fairness. It just isn't fair that one man lives better than another. The proper amount of taxation is the level at which all have the same standard of living. Take from the rich until they are no better off than the poor. From each according to his means and to each according to his needs. Total destruction of a work ethic and striving for excellence.

            ?


            • The fact that people can quit and just decide they don't want to work (although with less money) makes taxes quite a bit different to slavery.
              I bet the actual slaves from olden times would have bloody biten your hand off for 45% taxes and the fact that they aren't actually slaves.

              It's such a bad comparison and completely devalues the horrors of real slavery.
              yes I work and some of my money goes to the government but the company doesn't own me and I'm not considered their property.
              Anyway where are the fleeing masses yearning to be free of the awful burden of the UKs oppressive 45% tax rate and planning the next revolution?

              You also don't factor in that this tax rate is well known and everyone pays the band they belong in so if you honestly don't want to pay higher taxes then you can simply refuse a promotion and stay at a lower pay bracket with less tax paid. The idea that everyone has exactly the same hatred of government and taxes as you is also missing the point that Europe as a whole is as I said in a previous post a lot more enthusiastic about public services and we realise they have to be paid for with taxes.

              ?


              • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                For liberals, it's not about tax income, it's about fairness. It just isn't fair that one man lives better than another. The proper amount of taxation is the level at which all have the same standard of living. Take from the rich until they are no better off than the poor. From each according to his means and to each according to his needs. Total destruction of a work ethic and striving for excellence.
                Erm, are you bloody kidding me?
                You do know London has some of the most expensive housing and some of the richest people on Earth as residents. Please show me how we are taking so much away from them that they have the same living standard as the poor unless you think everyone here drives about in Veyrons and Aston Martins.
                The UK has definate class divides between rich and poor and it's growing not shrinking how do you explain that if we're so intent to make everyone the same?
                Saying that we don't have a work ethic or strive for excellence (almost the entire F1 grid is built in the UK how that for striving for excellence) just shows you know fuck all about the UK.

                ?


                • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                  Yep, it's a pretty simple idea and even millionaires have the first 11k tax free but obviously they hardly notice. You seem to have it bang on but I have to plead ignorance about vouchers as I'm a single bloke with no children so have no idea about what taxes families pay and the chances of me having a tax conversation with my parents is zero as I'm British and we don't do that sort of thing.
                  Sorry about that.
                  If you want to know more here a google link about our tax stuff but I have a feeling this will be a bit much just for a casual query about our tax situation.

                  I can talk about university loans though as they are only repaid (unlike US student loans bankruptcy does erase the debt) if the student makes a certain amount of money and the loan is written off if the student reaches the age of 50 without having a qualifying income.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studen...United_Kingdom Please skip to the repayment section.

                  I voted for the UK Lib Dems who said they opposed tuition fee's and then did a u-turn when they got into coalition.

                  Unlike the US we don't have vast millions who pay zero tax.
                  That's the largest gripe in the US today. From taxes to health insurance. Not everyone has skin in the game and the middle class ends up taking on the bulk of the financial responsibilities to fund government programs. Additionally, the lower end of the middle class has to actually give up benefits for themselves to give them to the classified indigent.

                  Might have said this before, but NY's welfare program, medicaid system allows for free transportation to the doctors. Many people were taking advantage and using a doctor visit to get into town, they'd see the doctor, leave, then hours later when they were ready to go home, they went back to the doctor and had them call for a cab. There was an attempt to adjust the program by charging $2 for the round trip transportation, but it was shot down. Something about being unfair to the medicaid recipient and their rights.

                  Since Obama Care began, the standard of living for many middle class Americans has gone down, specifically for the lower end middle class. Now it's become a struggle just to stay in the lower middle class, while many have failed and have become part of system for the indigent.

                  They system we now have is harming Americans. Would a complete transformation into a universal healthcare system work better here than the ACA? I don't think so, because of all the other laws we have in existence. Our tax code doesn't allow for it, and our generous public programs do not allow for it. The way the money is spent in our gov't doesn't allow for it. But most importantly, the minds of Americans, doesn't allow for it. Healthcare is a great expense. Redistribution of income IS necessary to have a Universal Healthcare system and redistribution is not what America is about.

                  We talk about which is the better way, but the fact is that people think differently about what's better. It's legitimate for Americans to think the original construction is the best, while Europeans think their construction is the best. Best only applies to individuals desires. and desires are different. There are places on earth with a free society and gov't run healthcare. If a person finds that Universal Healthcare is what they desire, they have to understand that there is a price to pay. Everything has a price.

                  Many immigrants came to America and turned right back, because it did not accommodate their desires. My Great Grandfather did so. But America met his children's desires and they stayed. People of the most recent generation in America seem to want it all. They think they can have all the opportunity America offers, as their parents or grandparents had, yet they want the social and gov't programs that will secure their health, extended education, and happiness. They haven't had to pay the price yet, so they don't understand what the price is or that there is a price. They don't understand what financial redistribution is, because they haven't yet had their own money redistributed. Though with the hard hit of Obama Care in the last few years, I do know a couple of people in their late twenties, that voted for Obama and liked the idea of the ACA, then voted for Trump, because when they themselves had to pay the premiums with limited use, it wasn't such a great idea anymore.

                  It seems to me that it's much harder to leave and advance from your station in society in Britain, if that's what your desire is. Though perhaps most are happy with the station they are in. Which doesn't make it bad, just a different.

                  What gets under my skin, is that Americans don't judge the desires of Europeans, they just want their own desires met in America as it was understood. YET, Europeans seem to look down on Americans and call them greedy and selfish because their desire for different opportunity is not like the desires of Europeans. Americans say we don't want to end up like Europe, not because Europe is bad, but because it doesn't meet the desires of Americans. Why is it so hard to respect people who want to live a different way of life? Why is it that Europeans dislike the fact that Americans don't believe the way of life in Europe is the Best. Can't you just accept that it's best for you and may not be best for others?
                  Last edited by msc; 11-26-2016, 08:49 AM.

                  ?


                  • The one thing I'd like to be worked on to keep, with the revamp of healthcare is pre existing conditions. All people equally are subject to pre existing conditions and even with a better economy, losing health insurance for the hardest working individual could be a death sentence.

                    But staying on your parents insurance until 26 should not be necessary in a better economy. Staying on parents insurance until 26 is only a necessity in combination with the design of Obama Care.

                    It's not surprising that Obama pleaded for allowing children to stay on their parents policy until 26. If that requirement was kept with a better economy and a better health care insurance design without the ridiculous regulations, such as eliminating all policies that are, "substandard", it would merely be a scheme for the democrat vote.

                    We have many of our youth in college until 22 which granted them coverage under their parent's medical insurance policy before ACA, and in addition they are not yet taxpayers. Now you have all children between the age of 18 and 26 as recipients of medical insurance benefits without the burden of paying premiums. Voters voting without the full impact of responsibility for themselves and to society. Voting for Healthcare policy for 8 years without experiencing the burden of the policy you voted for. It's not until 27 that many actually understand fully what you're voting for.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                      Erm, are you bloody kidding me?
                      You do know London has some of the most expensive housing and some of the richest people on Earth as residents. Please show me how we are taking so much away from them that they have the same living standard as the poor unless you think everyone here drives about in Veyrons and Aston Martins.
                      The UK has definate class divides between rich and poor and it's growing not shrinking how do you explain that if we're so intent to make everyone the same?
                      Saying that we don't have a work ethic or strive for excellence (almost the entire F1 grid is built in the UK how that for striving for excellence) just shows you know fuck all about the UK.
                      The Socialists just haven't met their goal yet. They are, however making progress. What were your tax rates 50 years ago?

                      ?


                      • Given that that was just after WW2 and the UK had literally no money I have a feeling they were pretty darn high.
                        Unlike the US the UK and Germany had quite a lot of rebuilding to do after WW2.

                        Also did you not read that I said the divide was widening and has been for decades the plan you talk about really isn't going well is it.

                        In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%.In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over 20,000 (187,970 as of 2015),[7]. In 1974 750,000 people were liable to pay the top-rate of income tax.[16]

                        Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s.[17] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.[18] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets - to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988.[19] The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget. The investment income surcharge was abolished in 1985.

                        Under the government of John Major the basic rate was reduced in stages to 23% by 1997. 21st century[edit]

                        Under Labour chancellor Gordon Brown it was further reduced in stages to 20% by 2007. As the basic rate stood at 35% in 1976, it has been reduced by 43% since then. However, this reduction has been largely offset by increases in other regressive taxes such as National Insurance contributions and Value Added Tax (VAT).

                        In 2010 a new top rate of 50% was introduced on income over 150,000 p.a. In the 2012 budget this rate was cut to 45% with effect from April 6, 2013.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom
                        Your move.
                        Last edited by PeterUK75; 11-26-2016, 03:22 PM.

                        ?


                        • Report: 300,000 Small Business Jobs Lost Due to Obamacare

                          Over 10,000 small business establishments shut down due to health care law

                          Obamacare has cost roughly 300,000 small business jobs due to higher health care costs, according to a new report.

                          The American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute, released findings Wednesday that rising premiums and regulations under the Affordable Care Act have had dire consequences for the labor market.

                          The report found the law has cost $19 billion in lost wages per year and forced 10,000 small businesses establishments to close their doors. The study covered employers with 20 to 99 employees.

                          Research from the American Action Forum (AAF) finds regulations from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are driving up health care premiums and are costing small business employees at least $19 billion in lost wages annually, the report said. These figures varied by state, but in 2015 the ACA cost year-round workers $2,095, $2,134, and $2,260 in Ohio, New York, and North Dakota, respectively.
                          http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-...ost-obamacare/

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                            Report: 300,000 Small Business Jobs Lost Due to Obamacare

                            Over 10,000 small business establishments shut down due to health care law

                            http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-...ost-obamacare/
                            No No no... 20 million now have "healthcare"

                            the economy is now better than it's ever been..

                            everyone LOVES their new health insurance..... obamacare is a great success !!!

                            More people are working, unemployment is the lowest it's been in decades !!!

                            Nevermind all the jobs lost, we'll play with statistics, so the above items aren't REALLY lies ... just not really the truth ...

                            ... but nevermind all that.....

                            ?


                            • What exactly was Sanders debating for with Cruz? Seemed like Sanders was debating against free market health care and Obama care. Yet he was supporting Obama care. He was clearly fighting for socialized medicine. Obama care is nothing like socialized medicine in it's design, and as far as I know, socialized medicine is not on the table at this point.

                              And the lady with the beauty salon. She said she can't afford insurance for her employee's or herself either. She even asked how she could afford to pay for health insurance for everyone, without raising prices on her services or lowering employee salaries. His response was that she should provide it and asked her to consider what will happen to her employee's if one of them gets sick. completely ignored the dilemma. He basically said to her, I don't want to hear about your problem, there is no excuse for you not providing it.

                              ?


                              • Since my early 20's I have always had some kind of health insurance. Somewhere in the late 90's I set up a group policy through my small business. When the recession hit us in 2007 - 2010 I laid off a couple employees and a couple others switched from our company policy to their spouses policy - leaving only two of us remaining on the company plan. By law they were forced to drop our account because we did not meet the minimum number of policies required for a company plan. Then I was forced onto the Wisconsin state pool - which I thought at the time was rather expensive for including a $1,500 deductible. But the monthly premiums were affordable and I was covered in case of emergency.

                                Then began the transition. At the end of 2013 Wisconsin was forced by ACA law to eliminate the state pool. I was among the first in November 2013 to sign up for Obamacare. For the year of 2014 In my area there were a total of 6 plans to choose from. Gold, Silver, and Bronze from two competing insurance companies. I picked the cheapest plan of all six. Including the small subsidy I qualified for - my premiums would be only slightly higher than what I had paid in 2013. My deductible, on the other hand, skyrocketed to $6,000. But to this point in my life I had never used health insurance. One yearly checkup was the max I visited.

                                In 2014 I needed an MRI and minor procedure, adding up to $7,200. My insurance covered the $1,200 and I had to take out a loan to cover the other $6K. This left me in an impossible situation. My monthly loan payments equaled my insurance premium - therefore in 2015 I would have to pay double the year before plus still have to pull the first $6,500 (the deductibles all raised the second year of the ACA exchange) out of my pocket. Well this made no sense to me whatsoever. So I went without health insurance in 2015.

                                As great thank you for being unable to afford an ACA health insurance plan in 2015 the federal government confiscated the majority of my tax return, $750. My finances never recovered enough to consider the $6,800 deductible and increased premiums in 2016 so for the second time in 25 years I rolled the dice and went without coverage. My fine this year is supposed to be $850. However, a President Trump executive order made answering the question 'Did you have healthcare in 2016?' optional. So even though I am again without health insurance in 2017, the $850 I have just saved is a good first step from this new administration.

                                I truly dislike the term 'repeal and replace' because federal government involvement is the greatest problem to begin with. We do not need a replacement, just some common sense reforms. Just think about car insurance in comparison. Sure, premiums have risen through time but have demonstrated relative stability. If health insurance more resembled auto and home insurance great improvements would follow. If I could purchase my health insurance from an Australian reptile or annoying woman with a 1960 hairdo I would be much better off than I am today.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X