/r/politics is a joke ...

Man if you could see some of the comments I get for mentioning that both dems and repubs are the same, and the constitution. It's like I'm calling their mama names.

Oh, I know. I can't believe some of the 'group think' that happens on Reddit.com. I try to bring up new ideas in certain cases & I'm totally shunned from Reddit society.

My talk gets me anti-libertarian videos and talk about how the constitution is a living document and shouldn't be taken seriously.

It's insane. The sad news is our country, especially in the large cities, has changed for the worse. The is a fundamental misunderstanding of why this country was founded the way it was.

You should look into the book "The Crowd" by Gustave Le Bon. It will explain why, I highly recommend it. It's an academic-type read and kind of dry but I think it speaks directly to what you are saying here.

Thanks - I'll check it out.

This is why Reddit is history. The mods are infiltrated with zealots uninterested in open speech, the subs are overrun by shills and paid manipulators. People, find other sites where they respect you more.

Where? Seriously, what are some good sites?

There are many subreddits available. You should unsub from the ones you don't like reading.

Well, that advice has no bearing on the fact that Reddit is overrun with shills. All over. Many of them. The advice is to stick my head in the sand and ignore the active manipulation. Ain't gonna abide by that, sorry.

There's bacteria everywhere. You should stop existing.

Maybe I don't understand it properly. But let's say I start a subreddit "underwaterbasketweaving". Now, just because I got it first, I am the boss of /r/underwaterbasketweaving. I can choose who succeeds me, etc. I am the dictator, just as if it were my website.

So, some asshat was the first to get the juicy word 'politics' about five years back and it has been a reign of crap ever since.

Am I wrong here?

Nope, you're correct. Look up the user illuminatedwax he heads conspiracy and is a mod in several other large sub reddits, yet he's never active on reddit.

Once you start to look around it's the same people who lead all the large sub reddits.

Chiming in as a mod of several subreddits...

Starting a subreddit is fairly simple given you have the initiative, free-time, and the right 'market.' Add either a budget or control-freak tendencies, and you've got two perfect explanations for why a small group controls many subreddits.

P.S. What does that make me? ;)

I'm not saying there's a ulterior motive, it's just something I recently noticed. Honestly It doesn't matter to me

Just glancing at the green highlighting in their comment history...

conspiracy, scifi, philosophy, FUNNY, chicago, books, japan, worldnews....Fuck!

Who the hell IS this person?? Why in the world are they modding so many unrelated subs, but never seem to log in?

Although, to be fair, they seem to be a pretty decent mod, better to err on the side of hands off...

Banned for checking the box "other" under "political affiliation"?

Indeed. You're allowed to criticize Obama if you are a Republican, because the (fake and dwindling) Democratic base doesn't care about Republicans.

But when you pull back the whole curtain...

What do you mean 'blocked'?

I wasn't aware this could be done on individuals subs.

Have you talked to the mods? 90% of the time, the person thinks they're "blocked" when it's just reddit.com's sitewide anti-spam restriction that happens sometimes. The other 10% of the time it's because they violated a sidebar rule, which most all subreddits have, including this one.

Cause you are trying to discuss points in a subreddit designed for a two party political forum only. You are the man in the middle of two warring factions. You will only get shot up in the insnaiity .

While your rant is factually incorrect, I don't think it was a ban-worthy comment.

How is it factually incorrect? This is the problem, seemingly nobody understands how obamacare works and they won't until it's too late, this is by design.

So what you're trying to say is i'm incorrect in saying that we are all now required by law to pay for a service from privately owned companies? Because that's factual. Or are you saying that insurance companies aren't going to hike prices because of obamacare? Because they already have and most insurance companies have already planned increases for 2014. What about that little baby tax fee for opting out? did you know that's based on income and is absolutely not affordable if you're of the middle class.

Would you be mad if i gave you the choice of either shopping at Safeway (knowing there's collusion between safeway and myself) Or paying a small fine based on your income for not shopping at safeway? Because this is exactly what the government is doing, this is sooooo ridiculously unconstitutional.

So what you're trying to say is i'm incorrect in saying that we are all now required by law to pay for a service from privately owned companies? Because that's factual.

That is a fact.

Or are you saying that insurance companies aren't going to hike prices because of obamacare? Because they already have

You and I both know that ALL insurance carriers have always increased the cost of their policies year over year. I've been paying for insurance, either subsidized by my employer or by myself as a business owner, for 20 years. Not a year has gone by where insurance companies have not raised the cost. So, that has nothing to do with the ACA.

What is factually incorrect is your claim that they can charge whatever they want, without safeguards or regulation. Completely false. Premium increases of over 10% year over year MUST be justified. Even if they get that increase, that stipulation IS a safeguard and a regulation. Insurance companies also must charge the same people in the same area the same premiums, which is called community standards. THAT is a safeguard and a regulation. The act subsidizes people with lower incomes. THAT is a safeguard. Medicaid eligibility is expanded, THAT is a safeguard.

And, these are the claims of the ACA, even though much of it isn't even implemented yet. But, in order to make your bold assertion that these things are not regulations or safeguards, you're going to have to tell us how it is you've come by this super secret information about why those things I've said above are not true.

Funny how people are here to rage about how having a differing opinion gets you banned even if you contribute to the conversation, yet they are down voting you to Hell for having a differing opinion than them while offering constructive discussion.

I agree with you. The ACA has/will institute many safeguards for consumers including limiting the percentage that insurance companies can make in profits and designating how much money from premiums must go to actual healthcare.

don't worry, OP is definitely going to answer you. godot is on his way with his reply.

So what you're trying to say is i'm incorrect in saying that we are all now required by law to pay for a service from privately owned companies? Because that's factual.

That is a fact.

No, it actually isn't a fact. Nobody is "required by law" to buy health insurance for themselves under the law. It's just a tax penalty. Your taxes are a little higher if you don't buy it. But that penalty is so low that I anticipate a lot of people will just decide to pay the higher taxes than buy health insurance

I guess we could argue all day about whether a requirement to buy insurance, where a failure to do is penalized with a fine (aka a tax penalty), is "required by law" or not. I happen to think it is.

Look at it like this, they put into place a new tax, however you can become exempt from this tax if you provide proof of health insurance.

Sure, it's something reasonable people can disagree on. But whether it's a "legal requirement" or just "higher taxes", I think the hysteria about it is overblown.

Why do they raise taxes for those who don't buy insurance?

They raise taxes on those who don't buy insurance in order to encourage them to buy insurance. Same reason there are tax credits and income deductibles for going to college. Our complex tax code is used to encourage and discourage all kinds of behavior.

By the way, when the ACA went to the supreme court, the meaning of the provision that creates the tax penalty should be properly viewed as a tax thing or as a fine. It was hotly contested, there is a good argument it's unconstitutional. Roberts tipped the balance on the decision, and there is also a very good argument that his opinion is even internally inconsistent.

I guess by the same logic, you could argue that you pass all red lights as long as you pay a penalty.

Usually when you break smaller laws in this country, you pay a fine for it. So I don't see how this is any different other than in terms of pure semantics.

No, here your analogy breaks down. No action is taken if you fail to obtain health insurance, no criminal record is generated, you don't get points on your health license - you just pay a fee.

I happen to think levying this fee on 20-somethings is fucking unconscionable, and the worst part of the ACA, but let's not drift into hyperbole; it's just a fee or a tax, and it's not the same as a ticket.

So the fee is taken by the I.R.S.? I'm a noob with this ACA stuff.

I understand there will be a box to input your insurance plan info, or part of it, on your W-2 or whatever, and a tick box to pay the tax if you don't fill it out.

Watch them mine that data for direct marketing and then sell it to the highest bidder. <sigh>

It's still mandatory healthcare. You can't go around saying that "hey you can opt out of it" because that's just not true. If you are being penalized for not being part of it, then its basically the law... aside from the semantics behind it.

You don't follow the "healthcare" law, you pay the fine. That's your punishment for not following it.

Dude, think about it...does this mean you are punished for being childless because you can't claim a deduction for having a kid? It's a tax. You can opt out of having a private isurance plan if you pay that tax. I'm sure people with dual citizenship in countries with socialized medicine will do exactly that.

You're missing the point.

• If I have a child, I have a net benefit: I get to claim a deduction.

• If I have health insurance, I also have a net benefit. I have something that helps me pay my medical costs.

Flip side:

• If I don't have a child, I have no benefit, but I also don't have any penalty. I don't pay more taxes because I don't have a child.

• If I don't have health insurance, I have negative benefit. First, I'm responsible for all of my medical costs, but I also have to pay a penalty/fine/tax (whatever you want to call it) because I chose not to buy insurance. I'm getting hit twice.

Face it, the only reason the mandate exists is to subsidize the part of the population that was not insurable or prohibitively expensive to insure previously (pre-existing conditions, the elderly, etc.).

If I choose not to buy health insurance because of various reasons, I'm penalized with a tax/fine/whatever because I'm not participating in the subsidization of those people.

If I have no recourse to avoid paying money, either for insurance that I don't want or as a penalty for that decision, it's effectively a requirement of the law (ACA).

Further, there are criminal penalties for not paying taxes.

Well, yeah. I mean, this is why I don't like it; it's a half-measure. If it was true single-payer it wouldn't matter that there was no opt out because it's a tax. If there was no mandate you could opt out. I guess I just see that you have a choice about who's robbing you, you can buy a private plan or pay the government a tax; I'm not saying it doesn't suck, but at least you don't have to buy into the corrupt insurance industry, you can just get robbed by Uncle Sam. Again, I certainly agree it sucks, but since what I'm pushing for is socialization of health care, which would completely eliminate the HC insurance industry, can you see why I don't mind the tax penalty part as much as you?

If you talking about socialism, that's a different matter. We are not looking to turn this whole country into socialism. So just because that works there doesn't mean it works here. It seems as though that's what you are proposing. Socialism is, as a personal opinion, disastrous.

We like our choices here and forcing you to pay a penalty if you refuse to take part in something, doesn't scream freedom.

I don't believe in forcing people to pay to charity at gun point.

Socialized medicine isn't charity, it's infrastructure. Look, if there's no insurance industry, there's no party vested in denying care, there's no reason to waste resources on a ridiculous approval process, there's no billions of lobby $$ wasted on subsidizations, there's no endless phone banks to get authorization, there's just whatever you pay for through the system.

At the end of the day, for many insurances, if they become insolvent, the feds pick up the tab anyways(just as they do with the banks). I'm just saying eliminate the unnecessary middlemen and grifters and get medical value for our dollars.

The reason our medical healthcare is so incredibly expensive is not because we need less competition and more regulation.

I don't agree with welfare because it's not the feds are the ones left with the tab but the future generations. Money doesn't come from thin air but is going to come out of someone else's paycheck. In the US, that money comes from the work of future generations and that's the most ridiculous idea that exists.

Socialism can always be termed as "infrastructure" but as an idea, it is a system that doesn't work in reality. People who work hard are left paying the most, while others feed off them.

Competition is amazing for the people and horrible for the big corporations. We need more different choices in our plans according to "what we need" rather than "what you should pay so that everyone else can get healthcare too". That's just more money out of the pockets from the middle class. Finally, the old people currently, who are the baby boomers, have caused enough damage by feeding off others through social security, medicare, etc... and this is just another way in which they can get more. The tab is left for the future generations and that's just not right. People shouldn't be born into debt.

They shouldn't be but they are going to be - capitalism creates far more debt that socialism does by default(well, corporate capitalism does). All the isms have problems, I think we should take the best from every system. I don't care if something is ideologically called "Socialism" or not, I care if it works! The system we have is broken, and it seems to me that a regulated free market is the best way to go, but when the people with the concentrations of wealth are able to hijack the system as they are and you start to have policy based on what works solely for the people at the top, you end up with gouging. From my observations it seems that the free market doesn't give a fuck if everyone starves, or dies, or lives their lives in crushing poverty and/or debt, so it seems foolish to trust the market to care for things which are essential, or are public resources, such as clean water & air, healthcare, power etc. We can leave the free market in place for luxuries and consumer goods, and we can have hybrid systems with sufficient oversight from uncorrupted governments, but the system has to be incetivized based on results.

This is why I advocate for universal healthcare; because the countries that have it have better outcomes than we do, without patient dumping, or runaway cost increases and the other host of problems we have here. You're better off in Italy or France or Japan if you get sick, both because you won't have a medical bankruptcy and because your caer outcome will be better, and that's a "shame on us" kind of statistic.

They shouldn't be but they are going to be - capitalism creates far more debt that socialism does by default(well, corporate capitalism does).

Who says I am vouching for capitalism? I think both are terrible for the people.

I don't care if something is ideologically called "Socialism" or not, I care if it works!

I understand but when you try to convince that we take up socialism in all different areas, then it is socialism and you are not just borrowing certain ideas from it. We already have social security, medicare, public schooling, etc which are all socialism (despite that fact that it is not known as such).

The system we have is broken, and it seems to me that a regulated free market is the best way to go, but when the people with the concentrations of wealth are able to hijack the system as they are and you start to have policy based on what works solely for the people at the top, you end up with gouging.

The rich are profiting from the system but that doesn't mean the poor needs to abuse the system to make up for it. Both are eating away the country from opposite ends. The solution to the 1% problem is not increasing our current welfare system.

The reason our medical health care is horrible is not because of free markets not caring. Throwing more money into healthcare is not going to solve the actual issues. It is important that we realize what the problems with healthcare before we can actually improve anything. This guy does a great job about explaining why the healthcare in US is not so affordable.

I am all for accepting socialism ideas in different areas but not as it is. I am more in support of the "unconditional basic income" idea where citizens get enough basic income to ensure that they are not on the streets, that they can afford basic healthcare, and that they can put food on the table. This definitely jumps a bunch of steps ahead from what you are suggesting, but with a libertarian society where free markets run everything and the government merely exists to ensure the rights and well-being of the people are in order.

Well see there we agree. I mean, the biggest bullshit eating at the heart of our political system is the idea that government should be run like a business. Government should oppose business; it provides a check on unlimited greed!

No, because there are actually statutes in each states' CRIMINAL CODE about traffic control devices. You will not find anything in any criminal code about this tax provision. Only the tax code. However not filing taxes is criminal.

You are correct about the new regulations on prices, in the future, however during the period after passage of ACA and before implementation ins. companies could raise rates as much as they wanted. And oh fuck have they.

So for the time being, there are no caps, and this is in fact a disaster.

Allow me.

We now live in a country where our children and future children are required by law to pay for a service from privately owned insurance companies

False: Another option is to be member of a recognized health care sharing ministry.

insurance companies now have free reign to charge any amount of money for their services, no regulations, no safeguards for the american people

False: They are required to spend at least 80% of the money they take in on premiums on your health care and quality improvement activities instead of administrative, overhead, and marketing costs. Ifthey don't, you get a rebate!

Also, must now publicly justify any rate increase of 10% or more before raising your premium.

What about that little baby tax fee for opting out? did you know that's based on income and is absolutely not affordable if you're of the middle class.

That tax is 1% of your income or $95, whichever is greater for 2014, (2.5% or $695 for 2016) and you only have to pay it if all of the following apply to you:

• You are uninsured for over 3 months
• The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost less than 8% of your household income
• You actually need to pay taxes.
• You’re not a member of a federally recognized tribe, a recognized health care sharing ministry, or a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare
• You're not eligible for services through an Native American Health Services provider
• You’re not incarcerated or or are awaiting the disposition of charges against you
• You're lawfully present in the US
• You aren't homeless
• In the last 6 months, You weren't evicted or facing eviction or foreclosure
• You didn't receive a shut-off notice from a utility company.
• You didn't recently experienced domestic violence.
• You didn't recently experienced the death of a close family member.
• You didn't experienced a fire, flood, or other natural or human-caused disaster that caused substantial damage to your property.
• You didn't file for bankruptcy in the last 6 months.
• You were able to pay for all medical expenses in the last 24 months.
• You didn't experience unexpected increases in necessary expenses due to caring for an ill, disabled, or aging family member.
• You don't expect to claim a child as a tax dependent who’s been denied coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, for which another person is required by court order to give medical support to the child.

And those aren't even all of the requirements.

More Info:

• https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/
• https://www.healthcare.gov/how-does-the-health-care-law-protect-me/ (11 items.)

The government wants the insurance companies to increase prices so more people will depend on the government for healthcare, eventually becoming a completely social healthcare system. Anyone who didn't expect this to happen is foolish.

[deleted]

Well instead of saying he doesn't know, why don't you inform him?

The fuck is wrong with you? Use your words.

Call 1800 fuckyo to get answers.

Who gives a shit, dude? Don't you think there are more important/more major issues to worry about?

Why do you guys even GO IN for these pitiful political football issues? You're doing NOTHING but lending further credibility / credence / legitimacy / polarization(false conflict) to an already joke-of-a-system.

Bottom line, both the republicans and democrats are fucking idiots and you're both ruining this nation. You're allowing a bunch of globalist to trick you into strengthening this plutocracy. I seriously wan't to cry when i think about the country i'm leaving my future children.

Yes, now you're more on point, FORGET about Obamacare. A million people died in the past decade or so in a war based on what have been admitted lies and admitted fabrications for nearly half of that decade. I think your health insurance isn't the most important thing to be worried about or focusing on, bro dude man.

Should we not worry about any other issues until we address the Bush-era? Just sweep the present day issues under the rug until we have completely resolved the consequences of Bush's presidency. Is that what you would prefer?

Do you not realize how meaningless your "healthcare" qualms are compared to the rest of real life? You're already forced to buy insurance, it's ALREADY NOT AN OPTION, you have your focus on something near-meaningless.

Is that what you would prefer?

I would prefer you and everyone else focus on issues that matter and that can actually change things or shake things up/provide real catalyst for mental/societal changes, not irrelevant distractions that they will have no impact on anyway other than further disguising the massive political INDIFFERENCE in America. You are doing nothing but trying to kick at a political football when you discuss OBAMACARE, and it's a really big waste of your time

And you say "Bush Era" like you think that's somehow a relevant segmenting of time - this still IS that era - this is our era, and political separation between "left and right" in the US is completely and totally irrelevant because it's not real. They are all from one criminal family. Between the Ex-CIA Director who siezed power for himself and later passed the throne to his son(while giving his other son/family members the various princedoms) there was a "democrat" who was also involved(like the Bush family) in an actually exposed, actual conspiracy, where people were actually prosecuted to traffic guns/narcotics illegally into and out of the US was Bill Clinton, a guy involved in exactly the same criminal conspiracies. You don't seem to understand how massively irrelevant the names/parties are, and if you do, then you shouldn't be leading yourself or others down the road to the entrance to the false political dichotomy where nothing will be accomplished because no thinking will change.

Well said OP. It sucks that right before the government shut down we were united in our skepticism towards the plutocracy's goals. Now we are at each others throats over Obamacare.

and said insurance companies now have free reign to charge any amount of money for their services

Sorry but that is not how it works. For one with more people having insurance that itself should bring costs down, plus people would just pay the fine and not get insurance if the price per month is to high.

no regulations, no safeguards for the american people

What is unregulated?

Actually, they can only charge you 125% of what they payed out, and are legally obligated to repay you any amount over that. It's called the 80/20 rule, since 80% of premiums have to be medical costs. Its my personal favorite part of the ACA.

Dude all the sheep are in /r/politics, what where you thinking.

As soon as the libtards get the bill for this clusterfuck the honeymoon will be over. The propaganda $ will eventually dry up and emperor will be left naked... Expect some dog wagging at that point.

Yes, but this has the effect of gueranteeing a profit for the insurance companies that the pols work for so it is all good.

I was banned from the Government subreddit for a Martial Law article and video.

"Required by law" is not really the right phrase. If you buy it your taxes will be lower. If you don't buy it, your taxes will be higher. But you can totally decide not to buy it and it isn't "illegal" to choose so.

The tax penalty is only 1% of your annual income, although in a few years it'll go up to 2.5% or something.

Welcome to our merry banned of men!

Also banned long ago and i used to regularly get to the front page.

hows it feel?

Problem with ACA and internet blogging/reddit is that someone will read a story about someone getting fucked over and then just run with it. Bottom line is poor people will now be able to get preventive screenings and thus be healthier in general. Boo hoo middle class redditors have to pay a little more a year.

So apparently you're in the "poor" bracket then and won't have to feel the financial strain of Obamacare?

Wot??

Actually, you'll find some pretty good reads in the controversial tab of /r/politics. The shills are hard at work so catch em while their hot!

Where? Seriously, what are some good sites?

Maybe I don't understand it properly. But let's say I start a subreddit "underwaterbasketweaving". Now, just because I got it first, I am the boss of /r/underwaterbasketweaving. I can choose who succeeds me, etc. I am the dictator, just as if it were my website.

So, some asshat was the first to get the juicy word 'politics' about five years back and it has been a reign of crap ever since.

Am I wrong here?

Well, yeah. I mean, this is why I don't like it; it's a half-measure. If it was true single-payer it wouldn't matter that there was no opt out because it's a tax. If there was no mandate you could opt out. I guess I just see that you have a choice about who's robbing you, you can buy a private plan or pay the government a tax; I'm not saying it doesn't suck, but at least you don't have to buy into the corrupt insurance industry, you can just get robbed by Uncle Sam. Again, I certainly agree it sucks, but since what I'm pushing for is socialization of health care, which would completely eliminate the HC insurance industry, can you see why I don't mind the tax penalty part as much as you?

There are many subreddits available. You should unsub from the ones you don't like reading.