NationStates

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Is that what we want to repeat?

Medicaid is funded by subsidies, not premiums.

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Is that what we want to repeat?

Medicaid is funded by subsidies, not premiums.

All right, I'm dense. Government takes taxes, calls it subsidies, funds Medicaid. Government takes taxes, calls it premiums, funds Obamacare.

What's the difference besides the name applied to the tax revenue?

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I think you missed my point entirely. Where did you study economics? I am quite curious.

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Is that what we want to repeat?

Medicaid is funded by subsidies, not premiums.

All right, I'm dense. Government takes taxes, calls it subsidies, funds Medicaid. Government takes taxes, calls it premiums, funds Obamacare.

What's the difference besides the name applied to the tax revenue?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm... no. Apparently you haven't been watching the news for the past three months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_option

anyone wish to address my "hobo with cancer" arguement and why we arent proposing free healthcare?

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:anyone wish to address my "hobo with cancer" arguement and why we arent proposing free healthcare?

Like I said before, you're only entitled to emergency care if you have no money.

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Is that what we want to repeat?

Medicaid is funded by subsidies, not premiums.

All right, I'm dense. Government takes taxes, calls it subsidies, funds Medicaid. Government takes taxes, calls it premiums, funds Obamacare.

What's the difference besides the name applied to the tax revenue?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm... no. Apparently you haven't been watching the news for the past three months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_option

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:anyone wish to address my "hobo with cancer" arguement and why we arent proposing free healthcare?

I suspect that your hobo would be able to receive Medicaid, should he decide to register -- back to the uninsured die more often than insured fallacy. Medicaid isn't being cut, so if he isn't 65+, and eligible for Medicare, which is being cut, then he should be fine.

He should see a community organizer and sign up for food stamps, too. Maybe get some tax help, as well.

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Ok I'll you give you that increase. But I will point out, that it does not address costs. It will be much mote expensive than proposed. And other programs will help decrease the standard of living.

I would gladly sacrifice a percentage point or two of GDP growth every year in exchange for health care for everybody.

A percentage point or two every year? Insanity. Over the past 40 years, US GDP has grown at 2.97%. It is currently at about $14 trillion. A percentage or two would be 1.97% or 0.97% growth. Keep in mind as well, that US population growth has been growing at 0.85%. Fire up your Excel and follow along! Assuming constant population growth over the next 40 years, a difference of 2.97% to 1.97% annual growth results in a 48% higher GDP/capita. Comparing 2.97% growth to 0.97% results in 2.19 times higher standard of living. Yes, that 1 or 2% compounded every year on top of trillions of dollars, does results of some significance.

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Ok I'll you give you that increase. But I will point out, that it does not address costs. It will be much mote expensive than proposed. And other programs will help decrease the standard of living.

I love how you agree to that increase and then wave it away with your hand. What possible increase could be more important?

As far as other programs, start a blog. Or, you know, actually create another thread. This thread is about healthcare and you just conceded the point.

I am talking about your beloved government estimating costs of government programs. At which they have failed miserably every single time.

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Is that what we want to repeat?

Medicaid is funded by subsidies, not premiums.

All right, I'm dense. Government takes taxes, calls it subsidies, funds Medicaid. Government takes taxes, calls it premiums, funds Obamacare.

What's the difference besides the name applied to the tax revenue?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm... no. Apparently you haven't been watching the news for the past three months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_option

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

If it is taxes why is it someone can get out of it by buying private insurance ?

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

greed and death wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Is that what we want to repeat?

Medicaid is funded by subsidies, not premiums.

All right, I'm dense. Government takes taxes, calls it subsidies, funds Medicaid. Government takes taxes, calls it premiums, funds Obamacare.

What's the difference besides the name applied to the tax revenue?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm... no. Apparently you haven't been watching the news for the past three months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_option

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

If it is taxes why is it someone can get out of it by buying private insurance ?

For the same reason that I can have a package delivered by FedEx, instead of having it lost by the post office.

And it isn't real competition, just to forestall that comment, because I can't buy stamps from FedEx and have them deliver my first class mail.

It's choice, not competition.

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

bvious, logical thing to do would be to put them in charge of our healthcare, banks, insurers and automakers.
Is that what we want to repeat?

Entire cost of the program? Close to 10 times. So this freaking $871 billion bill. (For which they collect money for 10 years, but pay out for only 5) could really be $8.8 TRILLION (or more), as I have stated previously (with evidence) the government is extremely bad at estimating costs. So the o

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:anyone wish to address my "hobo with cancer" arguement and why we arent proposing free healthcare?

I suspect that your hobo would be able to receive Medicaid, should he decide to register -- back to the uninsured die more often than insured fallacy. Medicaid isn't being cut, so if he isn't 65+, and eligible for Medicare, which is being cut, then he should be fine.

He should see a community organizer and sign up for food stamps, too. Maybe get some tax help, as well.

Someone said that we arent promising FREE healthcare. But we are promising Universal healthcare. So a hobo, aged 25 years old (hes a druggy/drunk) gets liver cancer. He goes and gets treatment. He cant pay. How is that ANYTHING other than FREE?

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

Regardless of the name you give to the government revenue that funds the program, Medicaid has skyrocketed in costs, and will be bankrupt soon. Unless the users can completely fund Obamacare, it will be exactly like the Post Office, with huge subsidies from the general fund. Using Medicaid as an example of underestimation, Obamacare will cost anywhere from 3 to 6 to 10 times as much in ten years and premiums will be unable to support the costs of the program.

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Is that what we want to repeat?

Medicaid is funded by subsidies, not premiums.

All right, I'm dense. Government takes taxes, calls it subsidies, funds Medicaid. Government takes taxes, calls it premiums, funds Obamacare.

What's the difference besides the name applied to the tax revenue?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm... no. Apparently you haven't been watching the news for the past three months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_option

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

It is. President Odumba conveniently forgets to mention that it is illegal to compete with the post office. But UPS and FedEx do fine!

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

Regardless of the name you give to the government revenue that funds the program, Medicaid has skyrocketed in costs, and will be bankrupt soon. Unless the users can completely fund Obamacare, it will be exactly like the Post Office, with huge subsidies from the general fund. Using Medicaid as an example of underestimation, Obamacare will cost anywhere from 3 to 6 to 10 times as much in ten years and premiums will be unable to support the costs of the program.

Meh, the post office managed to survive a couple hundred years before starting to lose money. I'm willing to give it a shot.

Sibirsky wrote:It is. President Odumba conveniently forgets to mention that it is illegal to compete with the post office. But UPS and FedEx do fine!

I like President Hopeychangey better. I think it catches his indecision and indifference a lot better.

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

The post office loses money every year. Meaning it survives on tax revenue. It is a tax. And an extremely wasteful one at that.

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

greed and death wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Jocabia wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Where exactly has my argument failed? My argument has succeeded. Obviously not in convincing you, but that's besides the point. The government has failed in projecting costs of various healthcare programs in the past by staggering amounts. I know, I know, lets give them the power over our healthcare. But wait! That is not enough! We should also make them be bankers, and car manufacturers. And run insurers. Seriously, as good as Obama is, we should abolish all private business and have him run it. That is the best way out of this private market created mess. Fuck those greedy capitalists. Scum.

/sarcasm

The government has so it's best that we look at similar systems. All historic and current data points away from your system and toward the proposed system. Now, I don't know where you studied economics but did they actually encourage you to actually look at similar systems and see how they work?

I would consider Medicaid to be a pretty similar system to what is proposed for the government option. The ten year cost of Medicaid was woefully underestimated -- By maybe six times? Plus, it's not that effective. Coverage isn't good, care isn't universally available, fraud is rampant, and it's going to be bankrupt in a few years.

Is that what we want to repeat?

Medicaid is funded by subsidies, not premiums.

All right, I'm dense. Government takes taxes, calls it subsidies, funds Medicaid. Government takes taxes, calls it premiums, funds Obamacare.

What's the difference besides the name applied to the tax revenue?

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm... no. Apparently you haven't been watching the news for the past three months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_option

When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

If it is taxes why is it someone can get out of it by buying private insurance ?

For the same reason that I can have a package delivered by FedEx, instead of having it lost by the post office.

And it isn't real competition, just to forestall that comment, because I can't buy stamps from FedEx and have them deliver my first class mail.

It's choice, not competition.

And for the person who does not want to send a letter ?
You still charge him for the stamp?

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

Regardless of the name you give to the government revenue that funds the program, Medicaid has skyrocketed in costs, and will be bankrupt soon. Unless the users can completely fund Obamacare, it will be exactly like the Post Office, with huge subsidies from the general fund. Using Medicaid as an example of underestimation, Obamacare will cost anywhere from 3 to 6 to 10 times as much in ten years and premiums will be unable to support the costs of the program.

Meh, the post office managed to survive a couple hundred years before starting to lose money. I'm willing to give it a shot.

WHERE IN THE WORLD DID THAT COME FROM? The USPS was a government agency until recently, when it became a government corporation. In both cases, it was heavily subsidized by tax revenue. If that's the best you have, it's time to quit.

Sibirsky wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

The post office loses money every year. Meaning it survives on tax revenue. It is a tax. And an extremely wasteful one at that.

It only started losing money recently

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:It is. President Odumba conveniently forgets to mention that it is illegal to compete with the post office. But UPS and FedEx do fine!

I like President Hopeychangey better. I think it catches his indecision and indifference a lot better.

I find him extremely decisive. Then again, my name for him, although it rhymes with his real name, is also deceptive. I think, he is making all the mistakes he is making, intentionally.

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:

NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ wrote:

Les Drapeaux Brulants wrote:When one pays money to the government, it's taxes, no matter what they may want to call it. If it's required, then it's even more clear that it's a tax.

The idea that the government can completely fund anything with user fees (taxes paid by individuals for government services) is laughable. Post Office anyone? Isn't that the President's example of how we will have increased competition, by the way?

Ah, so if you change the definition of a word, then your argument makes sense.

The price you pay for a postage stamp is not a tax, it is a price. You pay money for a service rendered. Your income taxes are a tax because you have no choice but to pay them or go to jail.

Consult the dictionary if you don't believe me.

" 1.

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government."

The post office loses money every year. Meaning it survives on tax revenue. It is a tax. And an extremely wasteful one at that.

It only started losing money recently

Again, you're getting off track. Why are "premiums" going to be sufficient to completely fund Obamacare? We know costs will escalate well beyond the 10 year estimate. In fact, didn't the CBO, or GAO call the budget unsustainable?