Cover Oregon

You want to find out how other tax payers can subsidize your life more. That makes it our business.

Do you have a cell phone? Does your wife? You have already said you drive an Audi. Do you have a tablet? Internet? A computer? Etc, etc.

You made those choices and then want to know how we can help pay for your health insurance. You have a set amount of income, like we all do. The fact that you've purchased all the non-essential items and then get subsidized for health insurance essentially means that we are now subsidizing your Audi, cell phone, internet, etc, etc.

You claim to "love" Obama, but don't have a clue about his policies, including this healthcare bill, which is pretty huge. So my point still stands that you are a great example of why our system is not going to work long term.

For the above reasons, it seems to me that YOU'RE the prick, if you want to start calling names.

 

There's a big difference between funding national defense, infrastructure and a social safety net and telling you what you can and cannot eat or how much exercise you can get.

 

That's because people keep voting for more and more of it due to ignorance and being lied to by politicians. It isn't a natural progression.

 

This is a very valid point and thanks for pointing it out to me. Didn't like the way this other guy put it out there.

 

That's 100% bullshit, IMO. Those arguments have been and should continue to be a part of the national debate over healthcare. Once a government enacts laws, individuals can't be blamed for taking advantage of the programs. That's true for people who qualify for assistance in the form of healthcare or food stamps. It's also true for people on the other end of the spectrum who take advantage of tax credits and exemptions that are allowable under the law.

 

You have a point, and my arguments, I know, are very weak. But I would also like to point out that if America is a majority healthy and is productive longer, we all directly benefit from that, correct? Let's say that the US invests 12 years of education into every citizen (immigrants disregarded in the equation), and if people only live and work until they are 45 and then die of a heart attack, that is only a return of 27 years. But if people stay healthy and work until they are 65, that is an improvement of almost 100%. But maybe i'm going down a weird liberal totalitarian thought process.

 

No, you're just supplying Maxie with fodder for a rant on education being provided by the private sector rather than the public.

 

Certainly peoples' choices to take advantage of programs should be evaluated. Everybody's situation is different.

 

There is nothing wrong with trying to grow the pie. The problem comes from trying to redistribute the same size pie.

 

They should be evaluated in terms of whether the individuals actually meet the specified criteria for inclusion in the program. Overall trends should be analyzed to determine whether a program needs to be modified or junked. But beyond that, the decisions individuals make about what to do with their assets are not the public's business.

 

You answered your own question.

For the record, our inalienable rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of what you described conforms to those rights. Our lives are our own, not the government's.

 

LOL. I don't mind public schools (I send my son to one). However, I do believe in vouchers.

 

Your first sentence and last sentence are contradictory.

 

No they're not. In the case of Cover Oregon, the individual's tax return is reviewed in order to determine whether they actually qualify for the income guidelines and other criteria for inclusion in the program. What they may choose to do with their after-tax dollars is not relevant to the question of whether they get included. Overall trends in what people are able to afford while they are under the plan may be of interest in looking at whether the income guidelines should be adjusted up or down, but other than that, what someone does with their money is their business.

 

Is anyone getting the larger issue? Once we begin subsidizing an increasing amount of the population, all of our lives become all of our business. This progression is not accidental. It's a massive and intentional change of the philosophy of what it means to be a citizen of this country.

Getting back to the issue at hand, technically e_blazer is right, but philosophically blazerboy30 is right. Both are right and both are wrong and more importantly to the ruling class, they are divided. And that's the end goal, make no mistake about it.

 

It's their business if they aren't asking to be subsidized. It's a choice people can make.

 

Agreed.

 

I had a doctor in the LA area recently say the same thing. He thinks we're better off having smokers kill themselves.