WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   rise in insurance costs (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=790326)

ord27 09-28-2011 8:25 AM

rise in insurance costs
my insurance premium has gone up 11% this year!

I know that some people wont blame the new health care law, but what can be blamed is that idiotic last congress and Mr. Obama for passing legislation that doesn't address the real problems.


here's another doozie from this one term President:


the next 13 months just might be the longest in this country's history....

Laker1234 09-28-2011 10:20 AM

This administartion is so far to the left that they are not even in the park. If I own a business and want to limit who aoplies, I should have that right. As far as health care goes, you haven't seen anything yet if this bill is not repealed. It's too bad that making a profit is becoming illegal.

mhunter 09-29-2011 8:10 AM

Once again instead of helping business he is penalizing them. This guy has got to go.

fly135 09-29-2011 8:31 AM

You guys are living the GOP fairy tale, where Obama loses to any idiot that they can put a mic in front of. Yes that 13 months will definitely be the longest. It will seem like 51. Because it will be.

I can fix healthcare in two steps.

1) Remove all tax deductions for money paid to HI, including the employers contribution.
2) Require employers to give their contribution to the employee as payroll if they opt out of ins.

Do those two things and most Americans will drop HI like a hot potato. The entire HC industry will be turned on it's head and have to convert to competition instead of govt backed welfare.

09-29-2011 9:18 AM

Now that's funny...

Laker1234 09-30-2011 4:10 AM

Okay, politics aside, here are some numbers I’d like for you to think about. Obamacare will offer the following three plans: The Gold ($9000), The Silver ($7000), and The Bronze ($5000). The Bronze Plan, which most will choose, costs—rounded up--$417 a month. The coverage of The Bronze plan is similar to a Catastrophic Insurance plan that my brother-in-law has. Most of the 22 million currently uninsured—unless they have a per-existing condition—can buy this same insurance. This plan covers both his daughter and him. Currently, he pays $258 a month, so under Obamacare, he will be saving nothing (-$159 a month) but will actually be forced to pay more. My insurance is the same as the Gold and the cost is about the same. I haven’t fully researched the silver. States will be mandated to setup and maintain a computer system, handle the paperwork, and all of the necessary (or unnecessary) things required to manage health care, so countless people will have to be hired, which will eventually mean another tax increase. No one knows the final cost of that. The new regulations will deplete most—if not all—of the insurance companies’ cash reserves, which will bankrupt most of your locally owned companies. The scary part is with no cash on hand the insurance companies may not be able to handle a pandemic, if one were to occur. I compare the new regulations to automobile insurance. Currently, if someone has 5 DWI’s, and 10 claims, that person is charged more for insurance. Under Obamacare, that person will pay the same as someone with no tickets or claims. This forces he good drivers to pay hr he reckless. It’s also similar to the ill effects of the new banking regulations, which have forced banks to now charge for the use of debit cards. When Dodd-Franks takes effects, at some point, banks will have to charge customers to maintain a checking account. So what does all of this mean? For someone without insurance, an extra payment $500 a month—with the guarantee of an increase—and a new unlimited tax liability (in addition to it being a job killer). Sadly, at the end of the day, the US consumer will still be without affordable health care, but this time, an Obama appointed supervisor will be in charge of your hospital staff.

fly135 09-30-2011 10:58 AM

What is it with everyone and their apocalyptic fears? Don't you know that we are paralysed as a society and the solution to all our problems only precipitates from crisis? Bring it on... And what's with wanting welfare from your bank? Shouldn't you pay for services?

09-30-2011 11:36 AM

I have no "apocalyptic fears"... none!

\quote[And what's with wanting welfare from your bank? Shouldn't you pay for services?]
I think it is pretty funny... the government in all their wisdom changed the rules on the banks, now they can make significantly less on debit card swipe fees. With the new rules the banks will lose approximately $6.6 Billion a year. Now the banks simply pass this loss of revenue onto the customer... The government hasn't figured it out, everything they do to penalize business just gets passed on down the line to the customer.

Why do we have a corporate tax at all? Who owns corporations? People, that's who! So you think that big oil is making to much money, buy big oil stock.... We are double taxed on everything we do with our own money, and many, many times triple and quadruple taxed...

Who is John Galt?

strife 09-30-2011 11:59 AM

22 million? No, it's more like 40+ million uninsured in the US. Sam, stop with your Ayn Rand already.. We already discussed how much of a hypocrite she is. She collected social security and medicare benefits!

fly135 09-30-2011 12:51 PM

Sam, I don't get the penalize biz part of your post. If the rules limit fees to businesses for a DC swipe how is that penalizing business? My take is that the debit card fee has been invisible to the user of the card and businesses are at the mercy of the banks. Now the fee for using a debit card is visible to the user of the card and the business's are protected from the centralized power and influence of banks who have conspired to use you as their puppet. As a consumer you pay to play insteading of getting a free ride.

All I see here is people who bitch about having to pay for the services you receive. Now you are on the side of business, because you share in the pain. The banks are the collective opponent in this. When the banks hide the fees from you and made it all free you were basically a tool out their swiping your cards and making them a profit while hurting that local guy who you might even call your friend.

You are taxed an infinite number of times. Corps are on govt welfare. They are protected by the govt and they should pay for it. The govt has given Monstanto the right to license "life", letting their seeds infect the environment to expand their ownership. The govt has protected the profits of the pharmaceuticals. The govt gives welfare to the heath insurance companies. The govt protects many occupations with legal requirements as to who can practice. Corps on the stock market are on welfare from the govt giving tax breaks to people who have little other option than to buy stocks with that money. The govt protects IP with patents. The govt runs the court system that allows Corp deep pockets to destroy the little people who only need to be threatened by a lawsuit to take away their rights with little recourse. I sure you can think of a bunch too.

psudy 09-30-2011 12:58 PM

You pay into SS and Medicare. Why wouldn't you collect it?

09-30-2011 1:13 PM

I guess I should have just said that the government is constantly trying to "protect" us and ends up hurting us. Every new law that they pass has unintended consequences... In this case, people who have premium accounts won't have to pay, while those that don't will! In other words, the poor will have to pay and the rich will not...

I agree with you regarding corporate welfare. The government should not be able to pick the winners and losers of industry, (i.e. Solyndra).


“History has proven again and again, when government picks the winners and losers, we’re stuck with the losers, and we the taxpayers subsidize failure!”

This crony capitalism and government waste is at the heart of our economic problems. It will destroy us if we don’t root it out. It’s not just a Democrat problem or a Republican problem. It’s a problem of our permanent political class. This won’t stop until “we the people” say enough is enough, and we retire the permanent political class that votes for this.

psudy 09-30-2011 1:15 PM

It reduces fees banks can charge the merchant(ie store) for allowing them access to instant funds availability. Banks take on a lot of fraud risk to allow people to use debit cards. Those fees help offset /manage the risk. No the Government says they can't charge them for whatever reason, so the banks are saying FU. Personally, I think they should just stop issuing DC and make everyone go back to checks. See how everyone likes that.

strife 09-30-2011 1:23 PM


Because people like Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Paterson, followers of Rand both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Ayn Rand realized that she couldn't make that much money off her book sales and that she would be wiped out if she didn't accept Medicare when she got LUNG cancer after her years and years of denying that smoking caused cancer.

Sam, I guess you are one of those guys that would let that 30 year old die ey?

psudy 09-30-2011 1:26 PM

Awe. Didn't know anything about it.

09-30-2011 1:30 PM

What 30 year old?

What did we do before welfare and state mandated insurance? Were people left to die in the street?? NO!

fly135 09-30-2011 1:32 PM

I agree that whenever the govt says it's making us safer then it's time to stop and take a serious look. Usually that means expanding the size of govt and giving agencies more power and money. Or going to war. But in this case neither applies. The new rules actually protect poor people from outrageous fees from unathorized secret loans that suddenly pop in your mail box with huge fees.

If my bank account is big enough that the bank values me without charging a fee then I don't see how that is putting anything on poor people. And if the banks want to go back to checking, that's fine with me. Heck my cell phone is 8 years old and it's the first one I got. Talking to the wrong guy if you're threatening to turn back the clock. Kind of odd coming from someone who was into computer programming starting in 1980.

psudy 09-30-2011 1:39 PM

Point was, increased government involvement is not helping. Its only hurting.

strife 09-30-2011 2:27 PM


Originally Posted by SamIngram (Post 1711553)

I was referring to the question asked by Wolf Blitzer to Ron Paul at a recent debate.


“A healthy young, 30-year-old man has a good job, makes a good living but decides, ‘You know what? I’m not going to spend $200 or $300 a month on health insurance because I’m healthy, I don’t need it.’ But something terrible happens, all the sudden he needs it. What’s going to happen if he goes into a coma? Who pays for that?”

Paul responded:

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do,” Paul replied. “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody
(kind of hard if your in a coma)

But then a few from the crowd(Tbaggers of course) shouted out "Let him die"

strife 09-30-2011 2:29 PM

And btw, have you ever compared Ron Paul to Dennis Kucinich? Strikingly similar.

09-30-2011 2:49 PM

Are you so naive to think that we can save everyone? We will all die, it is the only thing that is guaranteed in life, everyone will die, sooner or later.

I also guess you have never heard of accountability for one's own actions? I also guess that you don't know your history.

Most importantly, I also guess you have never heard of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which was passed by a Republican majority in the Senate and signed by President Bush.

I would much rather die than be a burden on society and/or my family, I have to go sometime.

fly135 09-30-2011 3:24 PM

The problem with "accountability" is that the govt has subverted the free market and therefore has IMO created a moral responsibility for everyone as a result.

09-30-2011 3:45 PM


Originally Posted by fly135 (Post 1711604)
The problem with "accountability" is that the govt has subverted the free market and therefore has IMO created a moral responsibility for everyone as a result.

and whose fault is that? Yours and mine, that's whose. We let our politicians bastardize the Constitution, they did it through a series of compromises... We let our leaders compromise our values for the "greater good", now we are left with nothing but compromises... We have been reduced to the lowest common denominator.

He was right!

– I have long been settled in my own opinion, that neither Philosophy, nor Religion, nor Morality, nor Wisdom, nor Interest, will ever govern nations or Parties, against their Vanity, their Pride, their Resentment or Revenge, or their Avarice or Ambition. Nothing but Force and Power and Strength can restrain them…

In short my dear Friend you and I have been indefatigable Labourers through our whole Lives for a Cause which will be thrown away in the next generation, upon the Vanity and Foppery of Person of whom we do not now know the Names perhaps…

strife 09-30-2011 9:10 PM


Originally Posted by SamIngram (Post 1711593)
Are you so naive to think that we can save everyone? We will all die, it is the only thing that is guaranteed in life, everyone will die, sooner or later.

I also guess you have never heard of accountability for one's own actions? I also guess that you don't know your history.

Most importantly, I also guess you have never heard of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which was passed by a Republican majority in the Senate and signed by President Bush.

I would much rather die than be a burden on society and/or my family, I have to go sometime.

So you would let him die?

Of course we won't be able to save everyone. And the emergency Medical Treatment act you speak of is a far cry from real health insurance. See how well a program like that works when you have been diagnosed with cancer or any other serious condition where you don't immediately show up in the emergency room. There is more to life than money and to think that your family would rather you die than have a financial burden makes me think that you are a single guy with no children. Have you not a humane bone in your body?

09-30-2011 11:50 PM

As a stage 3B survivor of testicular cancer and the only remaining person out of my 36 person stage 3+ support group at the phoenix mayo i think i know what burden is, and it ain't just financial.

The government is NOT the answer, my fellow man, of his own free volition, helping each other is. I will force no one to carry my burden, pay for my sins, or to toil for me, I can only ask for his help.

When you take one's choice of helping others away, you also take the rewards from doing so away. Without those those rewards we are left in a society without the knowing of pride, respect, humility, accomplishment, and love. We are left with contempt, hate, disdain, prejudice, and anger. I won't even go into the feelings of those that benefit from such choices, they are equally great.

Just so you know, I'll fight you with every thing I have, with every last part of my soul, to ensure that others have that choice. If you want to help people, do so, because you want to, not because you are told to. You are on the wrong side of this, history dictates so, and this one-balled-man won't quit until you figure it out, or one of us is dead. You can't win.

Sent from my iPad

fly135 10-02-2011 10:50 AM

A major problem with bigger govt is that the govt is giving out generous unfunded pensions that you don't find in the private sector. Once govt gets big enough then the govt employees will simply vote for their own benefits with nothing to prevent it.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:46 PM.