Higher Health Care Rates Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

. I'm concerned with having the best system possible, which would mean going to a universal, single-payer system.

That's an oxymoron.  The best system possible would never be a universal system.

Wrong.  (Not that they never increase costs, but as stated, it is false.)

The government doesn't cut costs.  See the inablility to work out a budget and our mult-trillion dollar debt.

Wrong.

There are no consequenses to the government for the government making bad decisions.  The can't go out of business, they can't be sued, they get paid no matter what.

Like I said, the SS goes bankrupt what do they care?  We can't sue them to get the money back and they still get their paycheck.  Forever as they have a huge golden umbrella pension plan (which will never be bankrupt).

This is truth.  You don't want to believe it, but it's true and you can't argue it.

 Zero health care. 

I think you're lying.  And I can find out also.  But you'd have to tell me the name of the company you worked for.  Of course, you won't do that ( I wouldn't either).  Which means you can't prove it.

Example: George Bush made a poor decision to go to war against Iraq (based on poor intelligence info).  He's still a millionare.  He didn't get fired (even got elected a second term).  Even if he was fired, he still gets his pension, and the full benefits of an ex-president.  He can't be sued.  No consequences.

Example: Nixon was fired.  Still a millionare.  Still got his pension and full benefits.  No consequences.

Example: Bill Clinton had an affair, lied under oath, and was impeached.  Wasn't fired.  Still a millionare.  Still got his pension and full benefits.

Please tell me what the consequences are for the United States Government when making poor decisions.

That's an oxymoron.  The best system possible would never be a universal system.

You're not even trying anymore. 

The government doesn't cut costs.

It can and does in many cases. 

This is truth.  You don't want to believe it, but it's true and you can't argue it.

As I said, you're not even trying now. 

Sorry.  I am leaving the discussion.  It is just no fun debating issues with someone whose entire argument is based on non-truths and comments completely irrelevant to the discussion.  Like I said, at some point you may make a true statement.  So far you haven't.

PS - It really doesn't matter one iota to me as to whether you believe that I worked 80+ hours a week in the trades without health insurance.  Just like you probably don't believe Barack Obama is a "Natural born American citizen."

I can assure you that when I was working 80 hrs a week in the trades, I did not have the time or the energy to spend all day postin BS on a public website with a computer.  Even if you don't believe the garbage you post, it is still very tiring to listen to it.  Millions of people work harder than you do.

BURN!

Just like you probably don't believe Barack Obama is a "Natural born American citizen."

Yes I do. 

PS - It really doesn't matter one iota to me as to whether you believe that I worked 80+ hours a week in the trades without health insurance. 

Good.  My opinion really shouldn't matter to you at all.

You're not even trying anymore. 

Don't need to try very hard when my view is clearly the best choice.  Giving everyone the same is called communism.  Not the best.  Having the government run everything is calles socialism.  Also not the best.

It can and does in many cases. 

Inaccurate, and you'd be hard pressed to find even 5 departments that cut costs.

As I said, you're not even trying now. 

Like I said, you have no argument.

@MasterAgain

Like, during the Guilded Age

No.  It's 2013 bro.  Turn the page.

Apparently you did not understand my reference. I guess I must take responsibility for that. Allow me to explain. During the Guilded Age we had a much smaller government like you advocated in your post. Also, during the Guilded Age there were virtually no government regulations of businesses as we were following an economic policy called laissez-faire. The end result was a growth of very powerful, and unregulated trusts (a union of monopolies) that threatened free enterprise itself by destroying the very competition we depend on which thereby appeared to be bringing Karl Marx's prediction that a capitalist country haswithin itself the seeds of it's own destruction to fruition.

Two main things prevented this from happening; powerful and successful labor unions and a sympathetic - and powerful - national government that began busting up these trusts and passing business regulations telling private industries what they can - and cannot do - in the field of competition in order to save the very competition we depend on.

This could NOT have happened with the small government you support.

The Internal Revenue Service issued a report Wednesday in which it estimated that under [Obamacare], the least expensive [health insurance plan available to a family in 2016 would cost $20,000] annually according to CNSNews.com.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act all U.S. citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their employer or by purchasing it directly from the government. Individuals who don't have it by 2016 face a penalty amounting to either 2.5 percent of a person's taxable income or approximately $2,000 per family, depending on their income.

The IRS's $20,000 per family assumption applies to a family of four or five accepting the bronze plan, which of the four types of healthcare plans offered by the government is the most affordable and has the fewest benefits.

Obamacare: [Massive New Rules Revealed for 2013]

The other three types of health insurance plans available under Obamacare are the silver, gold, and platinum plans.

In its Wednesday report, the IRS provided several hypothetical examples illustrating the "penalties" Americans would face if they did not have insurance. The report continues to use the term "penalty" as opposed to "tax" despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year that found those in violation of the Obamacare mandate were required to pay a "tax."

According to the IRS, a family earning $120,000 annually would receive a "penalty" of $2,400 in 2016.

In addition to imposing penalties or additional taxes on individuals who do not acquire healthcare for themselves or their family, Obamacare also penalizes most business which do not conform to the law.

Under the new healthcare law, businesses with 50 or more "full-time" employees must offer health benefits to their staffers working between 32 and 38 hours.

Employers that don't provide coverage must pay a $2,000-per-worker penalty, excluding the first 30 employees.

Consequently, many [small businesses trying to skirt Obamacare rules have resorted to cutting the hours ]of their employees in order to give them part time status, or have decided to stop hiring until they realize the impact the new healthcare law will have in their business.

In a late December piece in USA Today, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, Mark Zandi, warned that the Affordable Care Act "will have a negative impact on job creation."

This can't be right, can it? So, many people who couldn't afford healthcare last year will need to come up with 20k with this new affordable healthcare act? My employer plan is very solid, better than many private plans so I'd wager better than the bronze package I'm sure. Even with the recent price increases it costs my employer a few grand under 20k per emploee and me less than a few grand in deductible each year. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi read the bill thouroughly and would not have bragged about it if these were the facts. I mean, this would not appear to help anyone but the insurance companies and their lobbyists. No way the most transparent administration in history would let this happen. It simply cannot be true.

It be right!