/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.207910]

So how many of my fellow /biz/ bros will actually benefit from Obama care?

>be self employed
>not rich at all but I'm single and save most of my money
>make between 300-500 weekly it depends sometimes a bit more
>loyal Obama supporter I actually defended him when people talked shit about him
>was very excited for that Obama care thing
>decided to apply
>mfw I just found out I dont qualify for free healthcare not even a fucking discount
>mfw now have to choose between getting an expensive health insurance or getting fined up the ass

Fuck that nigger seriously nigger nigger nigger, and to think I was a huge Obama supporter and fan makes me cringe.

[Anonymous No.207931]

My mom is losing her coverage because of it. Thanks Obama at least some illegal migrant or welfare queen will get taken care of.

[Anonymous No.207951]

>>207910
i get to hear my boss complain about it all the time, that's fun

[Anonymous No.207961]

>>207910
>loyal Obama supporter I actually defended him when people talked shit about him
Hahahaha. I always sat back with a smile on my face knowing that people like you would have to deal with the consequences of your actions and what you've forced on others. Eat it, hippy.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.207971]

I benefited from the healthcare reform law. My existing health insurance was made vastly more beneficial. Many things arbitrarily excluded from coverage are not within my policy. Most importantly, my policy no long has a lifetime cap, meaning I'm protected no matter how catastrophic my needs may be down the road. That's a huge relief.

Finally, while I have no current plans to change providers, its nice to know that any pre-existing condition I might have will not be a barrier to shopping around for a better deal.

[Anonymous No.207984]

>>207971
nobody who "haz millionz" would say this

[Anonymous No.207997]

>>207984
Be careful, he'll post his screenshot of his millions that he has from when he put his large corporate salary into index funds after the market crash and then rode it back up in one of the best bull markets of all time. That's skill, you know. A local mine worker's pension plan did the same thing and when he told me about it, I decided to throw away all my investment books and listen to his wisdom. Lel.

[Anonymous No.208008]

>>207910

eurofag here. social security here is the default, employers carry the burden.

i call in sick every so often, get a doctor certificate to just to stay at home for the week, smoke joints. in between jobs, I get unemployment compensation up to 80% of my last salary, i can take it easy for a few months until i (very slowly) find a new job. if i'm seriously sick and have to go to a hospital, I have a private room with tv, everything's covered, i don't have to worry about a thing. women have between 3 and 6 months to recover from pregnancy. when i'm retired i get 80% of my last salary plus all the private shit the companies i worked for subscribed to, enough to buy myself a small house or appartment somewhere sunny.
every year i go on holidays paid by my tax return because, unless your some rich piece of shit, you always get money back.

life is pretty sweet in eurolandia. sorry to hear it isn't quite as good in murica.

[Anonymous No.208070]

>>208008
This ride soon gonna end

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.208076]

>>207997
So much butthurt. I guess someone is regretting that all those "investment books" got him no better results than a few index funds could have done.

[Anonymous No.208086]

>>207910
Its a well known fact liberals and liberal supporters suck at economics and realizing the facts of what they are doing. This plan Obongo is putting in place is a shit tier version of every other national healthcare plan that has ever been enacted. Obongo could not do single payer healthcare like every other 1st world country has and has done well with he had to be original this plan is awful.

[Anonymous No.208094]

>>207910
>make 20k/yr
Sounds like bullshit story OP. I make more than that and I qualify for cheap healthcare

[Anonymous No.208097]

>>208070
that's why i'm buying physical gold with the excess of my tax returns and the 15K the state decided to pay me back on the taxes i (erroneously, it was declared by a national court) paid on the appartment i bought i couple of years ago thanks to a goverment funded loan where i'm paying half of the interest the banks were asking. i also have a private retirement plan that allows me to declare less income on my yearly tax declaration.
i also bought some bitcoins when it was at 10 and so the last several months i've often been ordering dinner for my girlfriend and myself so we haven't been cooking a lot.

[Anonymous No.208099]

Didnt have health insurance before, applied cause I am supposed to have insurance now. Got free healthcare now. Doesn't really matter to me since I am a vet though. I always got physicals/meds/glasses/etc from shitty military hospitals.

[Anonymous No.208106]

>>208076
>Can't even understand the difference between a quantitative bubble and valuable holdings.
>Would still be defending index funds if they made a $0.01 return.
m8

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.208118]

My guess is that most of the critics in this thread couldn't accurately describe the Affordable Care Act if they had a gun to their head. You just parrot what you hear on Fox News or what your idiot friends post on Facebook.

The truth is that Obamacare dramatically improved the quality of health insurance across the board. It literally changed the definition of what healthcare coverage means. Before Obamacare, even gold-plated policies were riddled with exceptions, exclusions, loopholes and caps. Now, having insurance means being insured. Period.

• No annual or lifetime limits on healthcare.
• Insurance companies can't drop you when you are sick or for making a mistake on your application.
• You can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• You have the right to quickly appeal any health insurance company decision.
• You have the right to get an easy-to-understand summary about a health plan’s benefits and coverage.
• Young Adults can stay on their parent's plan until 26.
• A large improvement to women's health services.
• Reforms to the healthcare industry to cut wasteful spending.
• Better care and protections for seniors.
• New preventative Services at no-out-of pocket costs.
• Essential health benefits like emergency care, hospitalization, prescription drugs, and maternity and newborn care must be included on all non-grandfathered plans at no out-of-pocket limit.
• You can't be charged more based on health status or gender.

The law isn't perfect, and obviously the rollout hasn't been smooth. But anyone who denies the benefits is just stewing in denial.

[Anonymous No.208124]

>>208118
He actually tries to defend Obamacare too.

[Anonymous No.208127]

>>208099
are they really that shitty?
where did you serve?

[Anonymous No.208141]

>>208008

This idiot doesn't speak for all Europeans

[Anonymous No.208156]

>>208141
tell me your story? what's wrong with mine?

[Anonymous No.208190]

>>208118
(1/2)
>• No annual or lifetime limits on healthcare.
Why couldn't this be accomplished through a free market or by simple government option?
>• Insurance companies can't drop you when you are sick or for making a mistake on your application.
A mistake on the application, depending on the relevance, can be good reason to drop someone. Dropping someone when they're sick though, not so much, depending on the contract. Again, why can't this be solved by a government option or by suing for breach of contract plus punitive damages?
>• You can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
That's like forcing a fire insurance company to insure someone's house when it's already half on fire.
>• You have the right to quickly appeal any health insurance company decision.
To who?
>• You have the right to get an easy-to-understand summary about a health plan’s benefits and coverage.
Why can't this be accomplished in a free market or government option?
>• Young Adults can stay on their parent's plan until 26.
Why can't this be accomplished in a free market or by government option? Why is this a good thing anyway?
>• A large improvement to women's health services.
Translation: Men paying for women's child births and birth control.
>• Reforms to the healthcare industry to cut wasteful spending.
What wasteful spending is being cut and for who? Also, are you actually asserting that the government should be put in place to cut wasteful spending? I can't tell if you're serious.
>• Better care and protections for seniors.
Why can't this be accomplished in a free market or by government option? Also, protections against what and better care how?

[Anonymous No.208195]

>>208118
>>208190
(2/2)
>• New preventative Services at no-out-of pocket costs.
Preventative services for what and how? Also, translation: A free $50,000 mint that you paid for on your pillow after the government is done fucking you in the ass.
>• Essential health benefits like emergency care, hospitalization, prescription drugs, and maternity and newborn care must be included on all non-grandfathered plans at no out-of-pocket limit.
Nothing special and all of this exists in a free market or a government option.
>• You can't be charged more based on health status or gender.
That's a bad thing, dumb-dumb. This means that someone who doesn't smoke has to pay for someone else's lung cancer from smoking, or a man has to pay for a woman's child birth.

>The law isn't perfect, and obviously the rollout hasn't been smooth.
Does the failed rollout of a simple website give you a hint at how well the government can manage something as intricate as healthcare?

You seem to think that government healthcare hasn't been tried before. You also seem to think that someone who lives avoiding risk and avoiding bad health choices should be forced to pay for someone else doing the opposite. You also seem to, for some reason, think that the government is competent. But then again you're retarded as proven anytime you post on here trying so painfully to sound smart.

0/10; would ban if moderator.

[Anonymous No.208208]

i benefit from it because now i actually go to the doctor to find out what's wrong with me instead of just rolling with it
made me had to get a real job though, which sucks

[Anonymous No.208233]

>>208086
pls save images with text as .png

[Anonymous No.208291]

My healthcare did not change in the slightest since ACA was passed. It's still covered by my job.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.208304]

>>208190
>>208195
Your attempts to refute the benefits of Obamacare indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the law and the state of healthcare prior to passage of the ACA. You keep saying these changes could be done in the free market, when the fact is that absent regulation, these loophole, caps, and restrictions were the bread-and-butter of the industry. Sometimes the government has to step in for good of the populace. That's why we elect them.

You disagree with the law, which is your right. I won't bother to try to change your mind. You don't really care about solutions anyway ... you just want to fight. Good day.

[Anonymous No.208320]

>>208304
That's funny that you say that, yet, like in the past, you refuse to refute things on a point-by-point basis.

It's also funny that you say the bad things were the bread and butter of the industry, when it's the industry that wrote Obamacare. Yes, sometimes the government has to step in, but, at best, it should lead by an example via government option to encourage competition.

You still haven't explained to me why someone who doesn't eat junk, doesn't smoke, and lives a responsible life should be forced to pay for Shaniqua's 7th kid, her drug overdoses, and her diabetes.

[Anonymous No.208327]

>>208320
this. inability or refusal to refute, yet claiming the high ground of the argument. classic.

[Anonymous No.208333]

>>208320
and although I agree, I'd like to know how does the mentally retarded, or seriously handicapped from birth, pay for healthcare?

I understand Shaniqua who is make bad decisions can change her lifestyle, etc. But someone confined to a wheelchair with a helmet on drooling on their sleeve is a different story.

Not an emotional plea, a serious question.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.208337]

>>208320
>You still haven't explained to me why someone who doesn't eat junk, doesn't smoke, and lives a responsible life should be forced to pay for Shaniqua's 7th kid, her drug overdoses, and her diabetes.

If you believe that everyone goes into the same risk pool for underwriting purposes, than you're actually far less intelligent than I was prepared to give you credit. Make a credible argument, and then perhaps we can have an engaging debate. Keep posting fabrications and you will continue to look foolish.

[Anonymous No.208341]

>>208337
>still unable to refute
>anything

[Anonymous No.208346]

>>208333
>and although I agree, I'd like to know how does the mentally retarded, or seriously handicapped from birth, pay for healthcare?
Their parents, private charity, or a pro bono doctor. There was absolutely no problem with the healthcare system and these kinds of things pre-1960 or so, before insurance companies became the dictatorial middleman and before government and regulation (including lobbyists for the insurance companies writing the regulations) started fucking everything up.

[Anonymous No.208349]

>>208337
You're a very, very silly man.

[Anonymous No.208354]

>>208346
>No problem with this pre 1960

yeah...because we sent them to institutions and locked em up...on the taxpayer dollar....

>Parents
You do understand the life cycle? Half of your life you will be without your parents.

Yea it seems you have no good answer for that at all.

[Anonymous No.208361]

>>208354
Not really. Doctors were extremely charitable back then, as were churches, philanthropists, and other private institutions.

Do you think that such a person's parents kick them out when they're 18 or something? Not likely. They continue to take care of them and pay for them as long as needed.

It's also funny how you complain about the government locking them up, yet that's the same government that would be taking care of them now by whatever means, and the same standard of care.

What's your answer then? Certainly it's not to force someone else to pay for it at gunpoint through tax dollars?

[Anonymous No.208365]

>>208361
>Doctors were extremely charitable back then, as were churches, philanthropists, and other private institutions.

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.208372]

>>208361
You're relying on peoples good will to take care of all the mentally disabled people? Seriously? Not even sure if troll.

Do they get kicked out? No. But what happens when the parents, you know, die? Shuffle em off to another relative? What if they are already poor? What if there is no extended fam?

I'm not saying locking them up would be better or worse, I'm pointing out that you saying they faired pretty well pre 1960 is laughable at best and dishonest from there.

Did I ever claim to have an answer? I asked a question. Your defensiveness is telling.

[Anonymous No.208386]

>>208365
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynmcclanahan/2012/04/23/is-charity-the-answer-to-healthcare/

>>208372
>You're relying on peoples good will to take care of all the mentally disabled people? Seriously? Not even sure if troll.
Sure. What's the alternative? Have the government take it out of peoples' pockets for five times the value while delivering half the quality? Most mentally ill people deserve to be in prison anyway; they're dangerous. Also most mental illness is derived from the nutritional level and heavy metals toxicity.

>But what happens when the parents, you know, die? Shuffle em off to another relative?
That's up to the parents to decide and arrange.

>What if they are already poor? What if there is no extended fam?
Poor people shouldn't be having children. The solution to that isn't to encourage it more by making people who aren't involved pay for it. It's unfair and it only encourages more of it. Private charity, churches, philanthropists, organizations, pro boo doctors.

[Anonymous No.208393]

>>208386
>>208386
>pro boo doctors.
Pro-bono, not pro Boo.

[Anonymous No.208403]

>>208386
>asks whats the alternative
>gives only one, shitty, alternative

Again, not sure if troll....

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.208400]

>>208386
>Most mentally ill people deserve to be in prison anyway; they're dangerous
>most mental illness is derived from the nutritional level and heavy metals toxicity.
>Poor people shouldn't be having children.

And you wonder why I won't engage in a point-by-point debate with this clown? This is /pol/ quality trolling. Abandon thread.

[Anonymous No.208409]

>>208386
>most mentally ill people deserve to be in prison; they're dangerous

>poor people shouldn't have children
>not taking into account that having children can make you poor

>parent should arrange something for their kid after they have a sudden heart attack

Yup, you are a troll. Nothing more to see here.

[Anonymous No.208412]

>>208400
You can't even defend why you believe responsible people should be forced to pay for irresponsible people. You were in the trash long ago.

>>208403
I don't even need to have an alternative. I simply believe the government should not force people to pay for the medical treatment of other people for a number of reasons, especially poor people that breed. I suggested charity. Do you have a better answer? Let's hear it.

[Anonymous No.208416]

I don't have health insurance. Now I'm forced to get it on my own, but I think I'd rather to pay the fine the first year since it's cheaper.

[Anonymous No.208417]

>>208409
Not a troll at all. I believe everything I've said. Do you have any evidence or argument to the contrary? We seem to be debating on a philosophical level anyway.

[Anonymous No.208434]

>>208417
Yet you are unable to provide any proof to support your claims....

[Anonymous No.208441]

>>208412
>gets called out for ridiculous statements
>instead of defending said statements, attack accusers own previous ridiculous statements

Tu Quo Que aka You Too. Fallacy harder.

[Anonymous No.208447]

>>208412
Again, this isn't about me having a "better answer". I asked a question and never claimed to have answers, unlike you.

Do you even logic?

[Anonymous No.208442]

>>208434
I recall providing and article earlier that you seem to have not read that at least supports my theory in part.

How about instead for a change, you justify why people should be forced to pay for other peoples' medical care? Other than "because it's the good thing" of course.

[Anonymous No.208449]

>>208447
>Criticizes someone's answer.
>Doesn't and can't provide an alternative answer.

[Anonymous No.208462]

>>208442
I don't think they should. Apparently you don't understand that.

I asked how a certain group of people, the disabled, would pay for health insurance. That was all.

And you are still unable to provide an answer other than those which are troll worthy.

>charity
>pro bono docs
>parents

So basically you DO expect others to pay for their insurance.....

[Anonymous No.208484]

>>208462
Do you think charity doesn't exist or something? Do you think that the majority of doctors would somehow refuse to treat a homeless mentally ill man (assuming the mental person wouldn't try to kill the doctor or steal the doctor's equipment to pawn for crack money, which would be rare) who couldn't pay?
Do you think that the parents of a mental person who can't take care of themselves simply refuse to take care of them or something?

You think my answer (which is purely optional, as I stated that no one is entitled to healthcare) is retarded, but you can't provide your own answer. That's okay.

[Anonymous No.208492]

>>208462
>So basically you DO expect others to pay for their insurance.....
Through OPTIONAL financial or treatment charity, I believe people should have that option, but should not be forced to.

[Anonymous No.208507]

>>208449
>implying being critical of something requires a more viable alternative to be provided

[Anonymous No.208510]

>>208484
>implying mentally ill people are more likely to do drugs or be violent

Still waiting for that citation...

[Anonymous No.208511]

>>208507
Then I have a debatable answer while you have no answer. Excellent. Case closed, Anon.

[Anonymous No.208515]

>>208386
>Most mentally ill people deserve to be in prison anyway; they're dangerous
I was with you up until here. You have a lot more in common with anti-gun people than you realize.

[Anonymous No.208516]

>>208511
>case closed
>muh superiority

Lel.

[Anonymous No.208520]

>>208510
Life experience and statistics. You know that black parent with six kids who screams at herself and slaps herself while smoking a cigarette and wears shabby clothes and has no teeth? She's not a Rhodes Scholar.

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4909
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/191/4/343.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17906245

This is like asking for stats that bears are more likely to attack people than rabbits.

[Anonymous No.208526]

>>208515
Sorry, when I said that I meant they're more likely to end up in prison, and it's more justified than not. I do not believe anyone should be locked up as log as they're not hurting other people or other peoples' property (and as long as no one is forced to pay for them).

[Anonymous No.208551]

>>207910

Just do less, quit your job, and hop on EBT and all the govt. assistance you can. Then the taxpayers will be forced to subsidize your healthcare, too. It's win/win.

[Anonymous No.208554]

>>208520
lmfao it's like you didn't even read the articles you linked you dumb fuck.

>"Substance misuse rather than inherent aggression is to blame for most violent crimes committed by people with psychoses"

Not their psychoses, their drug misuse. Nowhere does it say anything about these people being more susceptible to drug misuse than anyone else.

They are describing how violent, mentally ill people are more often violent not due to them being mentally ill but due to them being on drugs.

Nothing about them being more likely to be violent, or more likely to be on drugs.

Are you simple?

[Anonymous No.208562]

I'm getting subsidized health care making 38k

[Anonymous No.208568]

>>208554
Since what I said is so obvious and well-known, a simple web search pulled up hundreds of thousands of articles so I simply linked to a few. Here, I suppose I'll take five seconds to go pick one out for you.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/01/06/severe-mental-illness-ups-risk-for-substance-abuse/64161.html

How about some articles from you that say that mentally ill people are less likely to use drugs? I'm sure if you offered a mentally stable family man some crack he would beg for it to the level of offering you sex while if you offered the person screaming at themselves in public some crack, they'd decline for health and family reasons. Lel.

[Anonymous No.208572]

>>208520
>“These findings have significant implications for the stigma surrounding mental illness, because it shows that psychotic patients who are not abusing alcohol or drugs are not more violent than other people.

So what happened to:
>"Most mentally ill people deserve to be in prison anyway; they're dangerous." ...?

Ya dumb bitch.

[Anonymous No.208578]

>>208568
Judging by your responses, I'm starting to think if I offered you some crack you would do exactly that....

[Anonymous No.208583]

>>208572
>psychotic patients who are not abusing alcohol or drugs are not more violent than other people.
Correct, but that's the minority of mentally ill people. The majority use drugs and are violent, thus are more violent than other people. You should empty your dribble pot.

[Anonymous No.208588]

>>208578
Not really, you're just grasping at straws now. What about me indicates that I would partake in drugs? I've never even done marijuana and I laugh at drug users every day.

[Anonymous No.208589]

>>208583
>unable to verify claim that a majority of mentally ill people are abusing drugs

I can wait.

[Anonymous No.208590]

>>208386
lel this is what /pol/ actually believes

[Anonymous No.208597]

>>208589
>Can't read the article posted four minutes prior to his post.
>Can't web search either.
Empty your dibble pot again.

>>208590
Do you have an alternative? I'm open to your suggestions on a healthcare system.

[Anonymous No.208599]

>>208588
You claim mentally ill people are more likely to use drugs, and your responses lack logic many times over.

Therefore, if I were to judge your mental ability based upon your logical reasoning, I'd consider you mentally disabled, and therefor you'd probably lick my butthole for come crack.

[Anonymous No.208605]

>>208597
>severe mental illness

Notice something there? It's only talking about a small group, those with the most sever of mental illness.

Lmfao you really are a dumb bitch. Shit, this is entertaining.

[Anonymous No.208608]

>>208599
>You claim mentally ill people are more likely to use drugs
They are. If you've ever stepped outside of your apartment, you'd see that. Also, there are a host of articles that support this (see here >>208568) and none that support the opposite side (your argument).

>, and your responses lack logic many times over.
Not really. Your responses are usually "Source?" and name calling, nothing more.

>Therefore, if I were to judge your mental ability based upon your logical reasoning, I'd consider you mentally disabled, and therefor you'd probably lick my butthole for come crack.
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.208612]

>>208597
>with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and similar conditions have a higher risk for substance use — especially cigarette smoking

LMFAO so they are only talking about a couple of disorders? And they are really only talking about cigarettes?

LMFAO OH GOD MY SIDES

[Anonymous No.208617]

>>208605
>Notice something there? It's only talking about a small group
Every article, study, or control is. You can't test billions of people at once, silly. I suppose with smokers getting lung cancer, those are only a "small group of people getting tested".

>A new study finds substance abuse is higher among individuals with severe mental illness.
Your argument successfully defeated in one sentence in the article.

[Anonymous No.208619]

At the end of day, I'm going to pull the lever against Democrats in the 2014 midterms as I always have and always will. I'd literally vote for a baby raping cannibal over a Democrat. I enjoy watching liberals suffer.

Do I believe it will make a difference? Nope. This country is fucked no matter who's elected. But that being said, the thought of watching Obama flail like a giant pussy over his last two years under thread of impeachment and the river of liberal tears gets me hard.

[Anonymous No.208624]

>>208612
You're grasping for those straws harder and harder Anon. Don't let go!

[Anonymous No.208625]

>>208617
Again
>Severe

If "severe" is only referencing say, the top 10%, is that an accurate assessment of the whole?

Again, are you simple?

[Anonymous No.208627]

>>208625
See >>208624

[Anonymous No.208630]

>>208624
You're STILL unable to refute.

I'm STILL waiting.

[Anonymous No.208635]

>>208627
See>>208630

[Anonymous No.208637]

>>208630
I've refuted everything. List what you want me to refute again. Also, do you have any studies that state that mentally ill people are less likely to use drugs than non mentally ill people? If so, I'd love to take a look.

[Anonymous No.208639]

>>208627
Not only are you losing this debate, you're making our whole side of the debate look like assholes. Pls stop.

[Anonymous No.208646]

>>208639
I think it's clear at this point that either you're struggling with a formally diagnosed mental illness or you take care of a relative with a mental illness. I can't think of many more reasons as to why you have so much heart in this discussion and seem so upset.

[Anonymous No.208666]

>>208646
>you can't have an opinion in something unless you have a personal stake in it

lel, what is devils advocate

[Anonymous No.208676]

>>208666
I'm just judging based off of your seemingly feverish heart involved in this and how upset you seem. It seems like an indicator, although I could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.208677]

>>208646
That was my second post. We have ID's now for a reason

[Anonymous No.208687]

>>208677
Sorry, it's just the other guy is so adamant and appears to be greatly upset so I lost track in the discussion of things. My apologies.

[Anonymous No.208707]

>>208637
It's been twenty minutes and there appears to be no response to my request for an article supporting his position. I can envision him looking speedily through his search results right next to the tab of other failed search results for articles about how bears attack less humans than rabbits do.

[Anonymous No.208718]

>>208676
>determining emotions over the internet

lel

[Anonymous No.208724]

>>208320
>you refuse to refute things on a point-by-point basis.
You made very few arguments to refute. Mostly, you just asked him to explain things to you. If you actually want to argue, you need to provide an argument.

[Anonymous No.208739]

>>208718
I could be wrong, it's just a glean from your post content.

>>208724
Is there a reason he couldn't explain the things to me? If he asserts those points, and the points are essentially rendered moot by counterpoints, can't he at least defend his position? Or at least why he expects responsible people to pay for the consequences of irresponsible people?

[Anonymous No.208741]

>>207910
>and to think I was a huge Obama supporter
You get what you deserve.

[Anonymous No.208750]

>>208718
>>208637
Also, do you have any articles that support your position?

[Anonymous No.208781]

>>208637
>>208718
>>208750
I'll just assume that instead of seeming too bitter/upset and not admitting that I'm right, you left the thread to come back tomorrow when I'm not here in order to claim that you were away offline when in reality you were likely either staying up searching the internet all night for an article that supports you or buying a Costco wholesale pack of pillows to cry and scream into for the relevant 24 or so resulting hours.

[Sage No.208823]

>>208781
>>208750
Also for any possible relevance, I'm absolutely for charity and giving (unless it's to people who don't deserve it). I just don't think it should be mandatory that everyone do it by law. That's stupid, especially when the recipients of it aren't reviewed.

[Anonymous No.208853]

>>208320
>You still haven't explained to me why someone who doesn't eat junk, doesn't smoke, and lives a responsible life should be forced to pay for Shaniqua's 7th kid, her drug overdoses, and her diabetes.
Because in the vast majority of cases, that's not who you're paying for. You're paying into a collective pool that will catch you should you become ill. If you go through life without needing the pool you contributed to, you have your health, which is a win. If you get so sick that you are unable to work, you can get treatment without having to worry about the cost, which is also a win. You could literally develop cancer at any point in your life, regardless of your lifestyle choices, so it'd be foolish to pretend nobody is ever in danger of being incapable of working at any point in their life.

Paying for people's shitty decisions and for people abusing the system is an inherent part of any form of social support system - including welfare and social security. However, in a good system, these people are a drop in the bucket, and a good system develops ways of checking to make sure people are not abusing the system, and minimize incentives to not work towards not needing the system. (As for smokers and obese people, they statistically require less health care because they die earlier. It costs a lot more to keep a senior alive than it does to bury someone who gets a heart attack at 55.)

Not defending Obamacare, btw, just refuting that point because it bugs me whenever it's brought up.

[Anonymous No.208879]

anyone else here look at healthcare.gov
my quote was 189$/mo when i ran through the application

[Anonymous No.208890]

I should also point out that you guys are treating obamacare like windows 8

both of which are subject to be amended and updated

obamacare is the shitty vanguard of the universal health care
its not very good
but it still did its job by leading the way.

the next patch will offer better end user support....right?

[Anonymous No.208924]

>>208118
Oh look, a part-time DNC shill

[Sage No.208929]

>>208853
>>208853
>You're paying into a collective pool that will catch you should you become ill. If you go through life without needing the pool you contributed to, you have your health, which is a win.
So I'm out $1.7 million dollars of my own money but at least I have my health, which I was largely responsible for anyway by not doing stupid things.

>If you get so sick that you are unable to work, you can get treatment without having to worry about the cost, which is also a win.
That's what optional private insurance is for. Plus with private insurance, your money goes to you and not any of the people who don't deserve help.

Why do I need to pay the government when I can just have my own pool? Granted, you could argue that my injury or illness might exceed my personal pool, but that's my own problem. Also why is it mandatory that I make this pool? If I or someone spends all of their money foolishly and is out of luck, that's their own problem.

Plus the poor, smokers, drunks, druggies, and junk food eaters are the majority because people that don't do those things generally aren't sick short of some surprise illness (that they at least didn't contribute to) or catastrophic injury which isn't their fault. Most sick people have brought it on themselves. And even if those people were a drop in the bucket, it doesn't justify making people pay for other people or making people pay for themselves.

[that feel when guy No.208947]

iHaz bro why are people shitting on you? I'm getting anxious and having second thoughts on the index stocks I bought now ;_;

I've lost like $300 or whatever out of $12k that I have invested in under a week. I was expecting solid returns even if the growth wasn't insane but I'm off to a bad start already

All my friends at work think I'm retarded for not just being AGGRESSIVE with 70% equity/small cap/leveraged funds/stocks ;_;

[Anonymous No.208967]

>>208304
>fundamental lack of understanding of the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

[Anonymous No.208977]

>>208947
You're fucking retarded. I'm glad that you use a name so I can block you. The markets move up and down in the short term. Even someone as stupid as yourself should have known that.

[Anonymous No.208975]

>>208947
First off i'm not propagating index stocks.
But you can't measure if your investment is a good one in the first week (at least not with something like index stocks).
It's sad how many people make this mistake, some investments are long term and can only be evaluated over the long term and others are short term and can only be evaluated over the short term.

[Sage No.208991]

>>208947
>Listening to iHaz
Read every word in the picture here >>208106

Also you're retarded if you think you're going to make more than double your money every seven plus years with index fund investing. Especially with investing at such a risky time as now with the market as overpriced as it is.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.209001]

>>208947

These guys >>208975 >>208977 sum it up pretty honestly. I don't how many times I have to explain the concept of long-term buy-and-hold strategy. How can you work at a mutual fund company and say something as stupid as you just did? Sorry to be harsh, but clearly being nice isn't working with you.

[that feel when guy No.209016]

>>209001
Well I was thinking long term then people like >>208991 are now saying things like money doubling every 7-10 years don't even seem feasible given we are at the end of a bull market. Please do keep in mind I logically know but emotionally am new to investing so I am just a little bit anal initially.

Do you consider long term like 5 years? 10? 20? 40? (I'm not trolling. Like for long term buy hold like I should just look at my account say once every quarter? half year? etc.?)

[Anonymous No.209036]

>>208929
>So I'm out $1.7 million dollars of my own money but at least I have my health, which I was largely responsible for anyway by not doing stupid things.
So you think sickness is mainly caused by bad decisions, and that

>That's what optional private insurance is for. Plus with private insurance, your money goes to you and not any of the people who don't deserve help.
people who are sick but can't afford help, don't deserve help.

>Most sick people have brought it on themselves.
This couldn't be more false. Let's look at the top 15 causes of death in the USA:

1. Diseases of the heart
2. Malignant tumors
3. Cerebrovascular diseases
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Diabetes mellitus
7. Influenza and pneumonia
8. Alzheimer's disease
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning)
11. Suicide
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
14. Parkinson's disease (tied)
15. Homicide (tied)

5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15 are impossible to be self-caused. 11 is clearly self-caused, but is often the result of mental illness or circumstances outside of a person's control.

4 is often a result of smoking, so we can chalk that one to personal irresponsibility. While 12 is often the cause of death for long-term alcoholics, it can be caused by a number of diseases including Hepatitis B and C, of which a number can be attributed to drug use and unprotected sex - but not all of them. 1, 3, 6 and 13 are increased by obesity, smoking and a sedentary lifestyle, but not nearly everybody who suffers a stroke or a heart attack is a smoking fatass, and while lung cancer deaths are estimated to be 90% smokers, lung cancer is far from the only type of cancer that falls under 2.

.cont

[Anonymous No.209059]

>>207931
Illegals already had free healthcare. It's called going to the ER without an ID. They can't turn you away.

[Sage No.209060]

>>209036
>>209036
>So you think sickness is mainly caused by bad decisions
Correct.

>people who are sick but can't afford help, don't deserve help.
I never said that. I said people should not be forced to pay for someone else.

Of the diseases you listed, all but about 3 or 4 of the causes of death you listed are significantly caused by the person themselves. More causes of diseases and conditions are tied to dietary habits and nutritional deficiencies as well as household and environmental toxins than most people think. But even if all of those causes were completely out of the person's control, nothing justifies making people pay for other people.

[Anonymous No.209078]

>>208008
Man you're living like a king, while the rest of us North Americans (personally Im In Canada, but I know murrikans get fucked over even worse) barely get any sickdays, and our employment insurance is 55% of salary. I feel like a slave building pyramids for the pharaohs (almighty job creating CEOs), with no break, nothing at all.

[iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q No.209073]

>>209016
>Do you consider long term like 5 years? 10? 20? 40?
20-40. Anything less and you risk being your results being bound by a bad market cycle.

>like I should just look at my account say once every quarter?
Sounds about right.

Honestly, you need to make up your own mind about how you want to invest. You seem to change your mind based on whatever 4chan or reddit post you last read. Someone that malleable is ripe for making really bad decisions. Pick a strategy and see it though. If not buy-and-hold, then pick something else. But whatever you choose, have the courage to follow your own convictions.

[Anonymous No.209091]

>>209036
So let's be really cynical and say fatties, smokers, alcoholics and druggies brought it on themselves and don't deserve public health care - that still leaves hundreds of thousands of people who die from diseases or injuries they did not cause, and many more who live through the treatment, but would die without treatment.

>And even if those people were a drop in the bucket, it doesn't justify making people pay for other people or making people pay for themselves.
By this logic, those hundreds of thousands of people are shit out of luck if they can't afford it, even though they in no way caused their illness themselves.

Sure, if you're healthy and have money it's easy to say "Eh, fuck it, if I get sick that's my own problem." - I doubt you'd say the same if you couldn't afford treatment if you had the bad luck to fall into the category of many people who get sick by pure bad luck. Even Ayn Rand turned to public health care in her later years; when it comes to live or die, people tend to fight to live.

The bottom line is, in a society, the individual does not get to decide who deserves public services. You don't get to decide who is worthy of driving on the roads your taxes fund, or go to the schools your taxes pay for. I'm not saying hand over everything to the government, because they tend to hemorrhage money like nothing else - I think we can agree on that - but there needs to be a system in place to provide the necessities to people, being food, shelter, education, and health care. Most people are just one bad accident away from never being able to take care of themselves again.

I don't like Obamacare and I don't like the government, but ffs other countries can keep their people healthy, why can't we? Why is our country the most unhealthy first world country, with the worst health care system?

[Sage No.209146]

>>209091
(1/2)
>that still leaves hundreds of thousands of people who die from diseases or injuries they did not cause, and many more who live through the treatment, but would die without treatment.
And why should someone be forced to pay for them? I understand and support private charity, but why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's healthcare, even if it's not the person's fault?

>By this logic, those hundreds of thousands of people are shit out of luck if they can't afford it, even though they in no way caused their illness themselves.
Save for private charity, pro bono work, and maye a few other things, correct.

>Sure, if you're healthy and have money it's easy to say "Eh, fuck it, if I get sick that's my own problem." - I doubt you'd say the same if you couldn't afford treatment if you had the bad luck to fall into the category of many people who get sick by pure bad luck.
Lel. It has nothing to do with money at all. I'm poor as shit, I don't expect anyone to be forced to pay for me if I fall ill.

>The bottom line is, in a society, the individual does not get to decide who deserves public services. You don't get to decide who is worthy of driving on the roads your taxes fund, or go to the schools your taxes pay for.
Correct, but I have a say in it as a first amendment. And although the current government doesn't follow my ideals, I can still support mine.

>but there needs to be a system in place to provide the necessities to people, being food, shelter, education, and health care. While I agree with you morally, I disagree with you in the sense of government taking from people to give to other people, both in principal (it's unfair), and in that it creates a reliance and expectation, and no incentive to do anything.

>other countries can keep their people healthy, why can't we?
Other countries pay 40-60% in taxes for that, and that's their choice. I don't support it.

[Sage No.209159]

>>209091
(2/2)
> Why is our country the most unhealthy first world country
Because (1) the food here is horrible for your health, (2) the majority of people don't care about their health, and (3) there's no incentive to care about their health because the government and taxpayers will simply subsidize anyone's health.

>with the worst health care system?
Well, that's debatable and somewhat even irrelevant. Does Uganda have a better healthcare system?

[Sage No.209166]

>>209146
Sorry, this needed to be separated into
>but there needs to be a system in place to provide the necessities to people, being food, shelter, education, and health care.

While I agree with you morally, I disagree with you in the sense of government taking from people to give to other people, both in principal (it's unfair), and in that it creates a reliance and expectation, and no incentive to do anything.

[Makeone !05IPwN9kVE No.209214]

>>209166
Principally i agree with a lot of what you said but many of the things you are implying will happen are simply nonfactual, many of the things you base your arguments on are also nonfactual.

>Other countries pay 40-60% in taxes for that
Simply not true, in many cases investing in public health care can be seen as a profitable long term investment for the government in it's populous. (Also i think you realize that you don't need 40-60% taxes to sustain good gov funded healthcare, look abroad)

> (3) there's no incentive to care about their health because the government and taxpayers will simply subsidize anyone's health.
How can you even spout such bullshit. Look at any other functioning developed country and you well see that the idea that people wont care about their health because of free healthcare is absurd.
>(1),(2) are just irrelevant ((2 to a lessor extent))

[Sage No.209248]

>>209214
>Simply not true
>(Also i think you realize that you don't need 40-60% taxes to sustain good gov funded healthcare, look abroad)
Sure it is. Go to /int/ sometime and see some posts of people from Denmark or the Nordic countries regarding them moving because taxes were too high. Even if they weren't high, making people pay for others' healthcare isn't fair.

> in many cases investing in public health care can be seen as a profitable long term investment for the government in it's populous.
I fail to see what I or the population is going to get back by investing in Shaniqua's lung cancer treatment (which won't work anyway) and her 7th child. As a matter of fact, people like that dying as soon as possible would be far more of a benefit to society and the economy.

>How can you even spout such bullshit. Look at any other functioning developed country and you well see that the idea that people wont care about their health because of free healthcare is absurd.
It's the same thing as single teen mothers and poor people shitting out kids. There's incentive and no punishment because the government pays for it. Why do you think some drunk Beavis skateboarder tries to jump between rooftops? Part of it is because he knows he can just go to the ER and have it paid for by a taxpayer. Take that away and you'll have less stupid people doing stupid things that affect their health. People don't care about their health anyway tough, but subsidized healthcare in any way only reinforces it.

[Anonymous No.209257]

>>209159
>Does Uganda have a better healthcare system?
First world countries, anon.

>Because (1) the food here is horrible for your health, (2) the majority of people don't care about their health, and (3) there's no incentive to care about their health because the government and taxpayers will simply subsidize anyone's health.
So other countries with universal health care are healthier, even though you claim that tax-funded health care is an incentive to sit around and do nothing? That doesn't make sense.

>>209166
>and in that it creates a reliance and expectation, and no incentive to do anything.
This is not true. I'll give Germany as an example because it's the country I know best (second to the States): You will be hard-pressed to find people more diligent, punctual, or reliable than German workers. They know that their social system will catch them in times of need, and yet they still are some of the best people I've ever worked with.
Their social system creates some leeches, yes, but they are the very rare exception - and they are not leeches of the health care system, but of the welfare system (and that's getting even more into /pol/ territory so let's forget about that).
Yes, they pay more taxes. Yes, it sucks, and their government pisses away so much of it it infuriates me - and yet I have rarely, if ever, heard a German complain about paying taxes for health care. They often comment that they are glad they have their system, and it certainly doesn't make them any less willing to work.

So really, the only issue is whether or not it's principally unfair to - as you put it - have the government take from people and give to other people. Of all the shitty things the US government does with our tax dollars, I personally would see health care as the smallest problem, and yet it seems to spark the largest debate about the principles of taxes and causes a fundamental divide between people.

[Anonymous No.209267]

>>207910
>to think I was a huge Obama supporter and fan makes me cringe.

You get exactly what you deserve.

[Sage No.209278]

>>209257
>You will be hard-pressed to find people more diligent, punctual, or reliable than German workers. They know that their social system will catch them in times of need, and yet they still are some of the best people I've ever worked with.
Germans are based. Germans/=/Americans. The average German is far more intelligent and kind than most Americans.

>Their social system creates some leeches, yes, but they are the very rare exception - and they are not leeches of the health care system, but of the welfare system (and that's getting even more into /pol/ territory so let's forget about that). Yes, they pay more taxes. Yes, it sucks, and their government pisses away so much of it it infuriates me - and yet I have rarely, if ever, heard a German complain about paying taxes for health care.
Just because they don't complain about it doesn't mean its right or fair. However, if they're happy with that, let them live there.

>They often comment that they are glad they have their system, and it certainly doesn't make them any less willing to work.
I think they would like their system more if they got to keep 25-50% more of their taxes, but that's just me.

>So really, the only issue is whether or not it's principally unfair to - as you put it - have the government take from people and give to other people. Of all the shitty things the US government does with our tax dollars, I personally would see health care as the smallest problem,
I see that too, and I see it as a further example of why I would not trust the government to be in charge of healthcare.

[Anonymous No.209620]

>>207910
Why did a big thread start up for what is almost definitely bullshit?

To not get any benefits making that little money you would either have to have some big other source of income/money unless you just typed in the wrong numbers into the application form.

[Anonymous No.209636]

>>209620
$12/hour full time is the cutoff for no longer receiving government subsidies.
That comes out to $480/week before taxes.

[Anonymous No.209664]

>Choose to pay for insurance, get what you pay for(More or less).
>Everyone pays of insurance so that the poorest can use it all up, get back what's left.


Side question. Why would you pay for insurance when you could have a box or bank account that you could put the value of insurance into? I've heard all kinds of stories of people needing insurance money and not getting it.

[Anonymous No.209669]

Nobody will benefit from Obamacare.

It's so incompetent that they "needed to pass it before they know what's in it" and launched the website with no backend and whitehat hackers saying it's possibly the most insecure website they've ever seen.


It's a fucking fiasco.

[Anonymous No.209676]

>>209669
>"needed to pass it before they know what's in it
Isn't this how the majority of laws are passed?

[Anonymous No.209678]

>>209636
That's simply not true.

[Anonymous No.209683]

>>209676
Many are "guts" which aids translate and "pork" which is just given the goahead fuckit route. But the ACA was not as typical. Passing this type of shit, especially party line right before christmas, should be illegal.

[Anonymous No.209713]

>>209683
I need to learn some of the lingo. I couldn't parse anything other than ACA is a special case that should be illegal.

[Anonymous No.209731]

>>209713
Congressional aids give cliff notes of bills to the representatives to make their decisions based on (also the decisions of influence by both party and constituents). Then, typically, pork is added on. Pork is just a simple term given to "Give me the federal money so I can basically buy votes by handing it out in my state/district."

Nobody knew what the fuck was in Obamacare, other than the briefest skim and goodwill promises. It was rammed though on a day where the public would not be giving it attention on a strict party line vote (meaning no repubs voted for it). So, it was done based on party affiliation and promises (promises like "If you want to keep your current doctor, the ACA won't infringe on that" which is now apparently a blatant lie).


tl:dr the levels of retardation you have to transcend in order to understand obamacare are legion

[Anonymous No.209732]

>>207910
Who did you think would pay for it? the 1 percent? Baha.

I'm just gonna take the fine for now. We should either go full private or full public. Standing in the middle is killing us.

[Anonymous No.209745]

>>209732
It's not that simple, anon. Staying in the middle of what we had, and leaning towards private (in the way of removing strangling regulations) would've been much smoother.

[Anonymous No.209751]

>>209732
This.
I feel like each state needs to individually decide and fund it according to their situation, and let federal gov worry only about nation-wide issues.

[Anonymous No.209772]

>>209751
have fun being an employer near the border with states on unequal terms

[Anonymous No.209785]

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/2014/01/14/cost-health-insurance-young-adults/

The biggest problem is that it makes no financial sense for people in their 20s and early 30s to sign up.

A catastrophic or HDHP cost like $60-80/month pre-ACA for a male in his mid-20s, and now the cheapest option is closer to $190/month.

Basically younger people are being made to subsidize the boomers, yet again.

[Anonymous No.209787]

>>209772
Why wouldn't it be fun, again?
Workers move to their preferred state.
Employers move to their preferred state.

[Anonymous No.209793]

>>209787
And employer in state 1 having to deal with health care legislation inapplicable/restricted in state 2 with full faith and credit restricted would be a fucking nightmare in accounting, which necessarily would increase rates.

[Anonymous No.209800]

I can't afford healthcare which is the main reason I don't have any. Now I either have to pay a fine or sign up for a costly health insurance plan that I don't need in the first place. Thanks Obama, that totally helps me out.

[Anonymous No.209810]

>>209678
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/#state=mn&zip=55423&income-type=dollars&income=24960&employer-coverage=0&people=1&alternate-plan-family=individual&adult-count=1&adults[0][age]=21&adults[0][tobacco]=0&child-count=0&child-tobacco=0

[Anonymous No.209817]

>>209751
I agree

>>209745
>>209772

Sort of agree also. If we went and deregulated a bit it would have been better.

Even with the old plan I had a good catastrophic care plan that was less than $40 a month. I just paid whenever I went to the Dentist or eye doctor since it is cheaper than paying hundreds a month.

[Anonymous No.209818]

>>209793
I think he's implying the guy would move.

[Anonymous No.209819]

>>209793
I think it's at this point that I have to admit I am utterly and completely illiterate in terms of accounting/finances.(My focus is programming.)

Gonna go spend some time on Khanacademy.

[Anonymous No.209820]

>>209793
>>209818
Never mind, I misread.

[Anonymous No.209821]

>>209785
>>209817
Exactly my point and what happened to me.

[Anonymous No.209825]

I'm getting healtcare for almost nothing for the first time in 4 years.

It's like being on the NHS again without the wait times or alcoholic Scottish doctors

[Anonymous No.209828]

>>209669
My state did an excellent job.

>tfw KY is actually good at something other than banjos and horses and horses playing banjoes

[Anonymous No.209832]

>>208086
>Had to be original
LOL the individual mandate was a replublican idea from the Clinton era, kid

[Anonymous No.209838]

>>209832
LOL slavery was a democratic idea from the Lincoln era, kid.

[Anonymous No.209845]

>>209838
0/10

[Anonymous No.209942]

>>209810
Got to cherry pick one of the only cities that falls through the crack probably because of how mnsure was set up by the state.

Why don't you check out the US average subsidies for that income on you calculator: $812. Not many people getting nothing with that income.

[Anonymous No.209945]

>>209825
You will be ignore because /biz/ is full of libertarians crazies that have come over from /pol/.

[Anonymous No.209953]

>>209942
You're right, sorry. I just picked Minneapolis because I live there. To be fair, the national average with subsidies is more expensive than the Minneapolis one without.
It looks like the average cutoff is somewhere around $14.50 full-time.

[Anonymous No.209955]

>>209945
No, because you're a stupid fuck who thinks the ACA and medicaid are the same government entity.

[Anonymous No.210209]

>>209278
>Germans are based. Germans/=/Americans. The average German is far more intelligent and kind than most Americans.
Yup, looks like another /pol/ browser who doesn't understand the value of government.

[Anonymous No.210218]

>>208127

Maryland and hawaii. They are shitty because most of the people you get are in training or just out of training. Only ones with decent experience are senior officers, and you rarely see them.

Bigger hospitals are better,though because they hire civilians.

[Anonymous No.210248]

[Anonymous No.210256]

>>208008
>life is pretty sweet in eurolandia.
Yeah, barring the coming collapse of the Euro it seems like you fags are doing alright with the welfare state shit.

[Anonymous No.210258]

>>208118
>• You can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
And you seriously don't understand why that fucked over people who already had insurance?

[Anonymous No.210273]

>>210256

>Euro collapse

where does shit come from? what's this imminent collapse based upon? i bet for all the arguments you can advance about the demise of the EU it could be just as reasonably proven that the US or Japan would succumb first.

[Anonymous No.210292]

>>210273
>what's this imminent collapse based upon
I didn't mean to say that it was imminent. Just that a system like that only ever gets worse, because more and more people come to depend on welfare, so it's political suicide to reduce it even for conservatives. The countries who do this are not going to be able to sustain themselves. Europe has one of the worst projected GDP rates across the board.

In the UK they're already making it harder to get onto welfare, but they're not cutting down spending to those who are already on it because those people aren't required to relinquish their votes in exchange for free money. Wretched plebs.

[Anonymous No.210414]

I make 23k a year and obongocare plans that cost the same as my job`s plan have higher copay and a 6k deductible vs the 2.5k one I have now.

I hope my job doesn't drop it's insurance, I really don't want that shit insurance.

[Anonymous No.210419]

Not obamacare but I am likely gonna drop out and flip burgers and get by with autismbux on the side. I didn't ever want to do this.

[Anonymous No.210426]

>>210414
So who exactly is supposed to benefit from this system if some faggot below the national poverty line has his rates go up?

[Anonymous No.210436]

>>210426
People with preexisting conditions benefit.

Also baby boomers (with preexisting conditions)

[Anonymous No.210450]

>>210426
Old people. Obamacare is just wealth redistribution from the young to the old.

[Anonymous No.210542]

>>210426
The entire premise behind obamacare is that young men pay for everything. Not young women since they gave women way too much extra crap that has to be free (paid for by men)

[Anonymous No.210544]

>>210436
>>210450
Oh, we already have a national pension in my country that I'll never see a dime of. Do you ever think this must be how the American Indian must have felt when we all came over, fellow 20-something-white-males?

[Anonymous No.210575]

>>207910
It was meant to help poor people at the expense of richer people, just like every other socialist program.

[Anonymous No.212601]

>paying fines
The fines are voluntary
>muh IRS
They're literally only allowed to take it out of your income tax refund. Lrn2deductions and withholding.

Anyway I'm joining the military so my health shit is covered by the state anyway. When I get out I'm never paying a dime to that shit.

[Anonymous No.212605]

>>208008

Lol that rides gonna end real soon brah.

good thing you let in all the muslims

[Anonymous No.212607]

>>208118

Lol the amount of doublespeak and bullshit in this is great.

[Anonymous No.212609]

>>208304

Even the architect of obamacare says it's been a nightmare.

[Anonymous No.212611]

OP

I don't know if you know this, but there are two ways to not have to pay the fine.

One, there is a form you can fill out and submit, stating that you have been negatively affected by obamacare, that's it. No fine.

Second, you can not send the fine to the IRS, their only way to collect is via refund. If you have no with holdings they can't get it. They were specifically limited to that in collection powers, they can't lean or dock pay.

[Anonymous No.212614]

>>209091

Worst healthcare system?

We have the best healthcare in the world and we also do the vast majority of research.

It may be fucking expensive, but it's extremely good.

[Anonymous No.212616]

>>212614
No we have the best specialists
Our overall healthcare system is rated outside top 25
like 45 IIRC

[Anonymous No.212620]

>>212616

I'll take our countries top doctors over any others.

[Anonymous No.212626]

>>212620
...for no other reason than the protection that red white and blue flag gives them and the fact that Jesus loves 'em more! Right on brother!