SeaWorld Parks doesn't pay any corporate income taxes after record year

GoBucks89 said:

The healthcare act is broader reaching. Impact more people and you will find more people who don't like how they are impacted.

The benefits of PPACA are broader reaching, but the economic reach (breadth, not magnitude) of PPACA and Part D are the same. That's what I don't get. At least we all are purported to benefit from PPACA. Part D is, by contrast, much more limited in scope so far as benefits are concerned.

Did Part D contain a mandate?

Not that I'm aware of. I suppose that could explain some of the disdain for PPACA, though there are similar, non-economic problems with Part D. It seems to me the vast majority of complaints I've heard (anecdotal, I know) regarding PPACA relate to the economic cost.

Seems to me that many folks who have problems with how negatively some other folks have reacted to *insert issue here* really just like *insert issue here* and are willing to look past any problems.

You've just summarized pretty much every political "hot button" issue ever - blue, red or anywhere in between. :)

djDaemon said:

GoBucks89 said:

Seems to me that many folks who have problems with how negatively some other folks have reacted to *insert issue here* really just like *insert issue here* and are willing to look past any problems.

You've just summarized pretty much every political "hot button" issue ever - blue, red or anywhere in between. :)

True. And its the main (though not the only) reason I despise politics.

I'm more annoyed at how few people can tell you what's wrong with the health care act, other than it was signed by a president they don't like.

I have looked at this from every possible angle, and can not see how there is an ounce of seriousness in the quote. Every discussion about Obamacare...no matter the forum (television, internet, face-face, etc) is filled with folks pissed about the COST. The COST is the only thing discussed. Every political show, every campaign, every poll...the standard answer by an overwhelming majority is that it "costs too much." Can anybody remember talking to one person who has opined..."I don't care about the bill because I don't understand it?" The point being that you don't have to like, dislike something to be smart enough to understand you can't afford it.

If I make 20K per year and my wife comes home with a 100% leveraged Lamborghini, it would be beyond stupid to discuss possible positive attributes of the car. Even if it is the greatest car in the world...bringing up the discussion makes ZERO sense when I can't AFFORD it. And how stupid does the person who buys it have to be? By the way, this discussion applies to Medicare A through ZZ, multiple wars, social security, etc. You don't promise to provide for that which you cannot afford.

I'm glad I at least agree with everyone that we need both revenue increases and spending cuts if we're ever going to solve this problem.

You don't agree with everyone. Those who put revenue and spending in the same sentence an assign the same weight to each, are clueless about the reality of our situation. Keeping with the Lamborghini example... Discussing the "revenue" side of the equation parallels arguing about whether to keep or remove the "Hope and Change" bumper sticker. Even if we can agree to keep or remove the sticker, we still can't afford the car.





Aamilj said:
I have looked at this from every possible angle, and can not see how there is an ounce of seriousness in the quote. Every discussion about Obamacare...no matter the forum (television, internet, face-face, etc) is filled with folks pissed about the COST.

Fortunately I don't need your validation, or your underhanded insults to get through my day.

Most people can't tell you what it will cost, or how it will be funded. They just use words like "socialism" and "death panel" because it's easier to talk out of their asses than actually look deeper into any issue.

And yet you keep him around! Where's that -1 button?!?!

+1 for a -1 button :)

"In the CNN/ORC survey, 68% of respondents said the current tax system benefits the rich and is unfair to ordinary workers, compared with 29% who disagreed with that view."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/17/cnnorc-poll-most-americans-say-tax-system-favors-wealthy/?hpt=hp_t1

Would have been interesting to see the basis for those views.

Jeff said:

I'm more annoyed at how few people can tell you what's wrong with the health care act, other than it was signed by a president they don't like. Americans at their best!

This quote brings up what I always thought was an interesting conversation. As someone who knows about the act and has considerable knowledge about a number of issues...what are you doing about it? How does that help you?

I used to be into politics and issues. I've shaken hands with former presidents, men who would become vice-president, etc. But I can honestly say that my knowledge never got me anywhere and my life is infinitely more fun now that I don't care.

If people enjoy following it and keeping informed, then that's great for them. It really is. But I'd argue that apathy isn't necessarily a bad thing, either.

Uncle -- Do you still vote? If so, based on what?

I do still vote. Based primarily on whom I used to trust more (or not distrust as much, as the case may be).

And if I ever decided to vote the opposite of that trust it would never change the result of any election.

Fortunately I don't need your validation, or your underhanded insults to get through my day.

Among the three available choices...insult by calling you a douche, ignore absurdity in deference, or tell the truth...I felt the later the most reasonable. Sorry if I violated CB protocol again.

I'm honestly pleased your day is not ruined...that is never an intention for reasonable disagreement. That said, I'm sure all reasonable people could agree that unprovoked belittlement of the American populace based upon nothing but pure opinion (no facts or hint of supporting empiricism) is worthy of rebuttal. It is an interesting side topic that one who seemingly discourages "underhanded insults" can freely accuse the public of "talking out their asses" for not accepting vague banter as reasoned discourse.

The unchallenged point remains. People are against Obamacare because of the cost. To pretend that this is a minority position, or something that is not easily identifiable is disingenuous.

To try and paint the vast majority who do not like the cost of Obamacare as idiots is as underhanded as it gets.

This point is illustrated as even more absurd when reminded that Obama's closest ally in passing this boondoggle was Nancy Pelosi. It was she who gave us this classic American quote in defense of Obamacare...

• We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it



Most people can't tell you what it will cost, or how it will be funded.

Most people can't tell you what a Lamborghini costs. Yet they have the good sense to know they can't buy one. Those that are dumb enough to buy a Lamborghini they cannot afford are referred to as "idiots." In the history of "idiots" I'm not sure I can recall a situation where one openly opines that you must first buy the car, then see what it costs. But if one were actually to do that, we would call them Nancy Pelosi/Obama/etc. Or for Gator..."W" Bush and funding of the war, etc.

They just use words like "socialism" and "death panel" because it's easier to talk out of their asses than actually look deeper into any issue.


Reasonable people can disagree about exactly who is "talking out their ass." But in the spirit of empiricism I'd dare say that any position that finds you remotley close to supporting the Obama/Pelosi position of you "have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" while simultaneously pimping "deep thought" and investigative instincts as a virtuous endeavors...just might be talking out of two orifices.

The prior paragraph applies, even if one understands that wasting time and energy "looking deeper" into intricacies we cannot afford is a waste of time.

P.S. Standard deferral protocol and past history indicate that this is the appropriate time to pretend the post is too long and "I didn't read it." We can also expect a few calls for censorship and banishment.

What would be shocking would be a well-planned defense of prior banter that reeks of anything close to an actual understanding of intricacies of Obamacare that magically make it affordable in the face of 40-50 trillion of unfunded liabilities. Even more shocking would be a detailed discussion of the CBO's history of markedly underestimating the cost of EVERY social program they have EVER analysed. But that would be silly I guess. Best to keep it vague and simple so one can pretend they have superior knowledge absent any demonstration that this has EVER been the case in terms of economic realities. We know this works. I give you one President and one former Speaker...



Jeff said:

I'm more annoyed at how few people can tell you what's wrong with the health care act, other than it was signed by a president they don't like. Americans at their best!

My own personal issues are that

1) most of the people voting on it didn't bother to read it and have no clue what is contained in it.

2) many of the people and interest groups that lobbied hardest to get it passed also lobbied to have themselves exempted from its requirements-- big red flag to me.

3) despite the original intentions, there has been very little discussion about how this plan will reduce the costs of medical care.

4) you can laugh and scoff about "death panels." But I believe that at some point in the future, when the population shifts to a much older demographic with very expensive health care needs being supported by a smaller percentage of younger working people, there will come a point when people are told "we're just not going to pay for your treatment anymore." When they're predicting that 80 to 90 percent of GDP will be spent just to fund Medicare and Social Security within 20 years, leaving every other program to scramble for a share of what's left, what do you think will happen?

RatherGoodBear said:
1)...

2)...

3)...

In other words, you dislike all legislation passed in, say, the last 20 years. :-)

Not saying I don't agree, just wanted to point out that the issues you mention aren't unique to PPACA.

...what do you think will happen?

The same thing that happens now - we'll borrow to pay for it. No politician would ever come close to associating him/herself with the plan you describe. Regardless, the problem you describe exists with or without PPACA.

My problem with it has always been (and maybe this oversimplifies it):

I believe the idea that insurance is synonymous with health care is the number one problem we have. In fact, I think it is the problem with the health care system in this country.

To the best of my understanding Obamacare does nothing to change this, it merely shoehorns everyone into the broken system.

Great.

On top of that, I don't feel health care is a right.

Beyond that, I don't think I need any other reasons to oppose it.

Hell, I think anyone should be allowed to oppose anything for any reason that matters to them.

Lord Gonchar said:

I don't feel health care is a right.

This. Aside from cost, which is one of the problems I have with the bill, the fact that this will be mandated should it be passed sets a scary precedent for the future of this country.

The problem with healthcare not being a right is this: What healthcare provider with any sense of human ethics would refuse treatment to someone who needs it?

And if that person who needs it can't pay, then who does?

Requiring health insurance protects the healthcare providers - and those that do pay for healthcare - from the financial burden of providing to those without insurance.

Here is a good read: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102685/conservative-defense-oba...are-health

Good quote from the linked article:

Moreover, the market for health care is distinctive (if not entirely unique) in several key respects. Virtually all of us will need and obtain health care at some point, but we often cannot predict when or in what ways we will need it. And for the vast majority of us, direct payment for the health care services we obtain would be prohibitively expensive. Yet not obtaining needed medical care can be the difference between life and death.

These features help explain why, unlike many other markets, insurance is the overwhelmingly dominant means of payment in the health care market. They also explain why Congress has required that individuals be given emergency care without regard to their ability to pay. As a result, and again unlike other markets, uninsured individuals who are unable to pay directly for needed medical services necessarily shift the cost of those services to others -- to health care providers, the government, individuals with insurance, and taxpayers.

In response to RatherGoodBear, health care costs will be reduced because your insurance will not also have to make up the burden of the uninsured. At the same time, PPACA provides for more coverage of preventative medicine, which has been proven to reduce overall costs, since it's generally a lot cheaper to prevent illness than treat it.

Two Fifteen said:

The problem with healthcare not being a right is this: What healthcare provider with any sense of human ethics would refuse treatment to someone who needs it?

Happens all the time.

Two Fifteen said:

In response to RatherGoodBear, health care costs will be reduced because your insurance will not also have to make up the burden of the uninsured. At the same time, PPACA provides for more coverage of preventative medicine, which has been proven to reduce overall costs, since it's generally a lot cheaper to prevent illness than treat it.

Isn't that still equating healthcare to health insurance? Gonch made the point about that being the number one problem with our broken system and I agree. And RGB was suggesting that the plan doesn't address actual healthcare costs or their reduction... just the insurance that's supposed to pay for it all.

Last year I had some lab work done to identify the cause of a symptom I was having. The doc's office coded it wrong and it went to the insurance company as preventative care which isn't covered. I received a bill from the hospital for $XXXX (four figures.) The doctor fixed the coding and resubmitted so the lab was covered. The insurance company paid $XXX (three figures.)

That lab should have cost the same regardless of who paid for it. Who is doing anything about that racket?

I'm taking a graduate-level Healthcare Economics class as I type, and the idea that government "WILL become too involved in health care" is ludicrous. We have already jumped that shark. Hospitals and health insurance are now into government, and vice versa, considerably more than 50% (a closer approximation would be 70-80%). The only part of health care that individuals really have considerable "skin in the game" any more is in prescription medication....

Honestly, we're way closer to "socialized" medicine than anyone on either side of the political spectrum would like you to know...

As for "death panels" - you've already got them, in a very real sense. But God forbid they're comprised of people NOT in the for-profit sector of the health care system.

Carrie J. said:
That lab should have cost the same regardless of who paid for it. Who is doing anything about that racket?

No fair reading ahead!

Actually, this is a major peeve of mine too. I hate going through our processed claims and seeing things like:

Amount Charged: $125.00
Negotiated Payment: $78.23

What the hell is that about?