Those companies you mentioned are private business not the government. Your points are well-made but you can’t say “they should’ve planned better”. The government has no right to that money, it’s that simple.

You’re partially correct. The tax is levied against assets in excess of $5.4M, not just income or cash. A small family-run business can easily have assets more than that. Those assets might not be liquid so they can’t be used to pay for college unless they’re liquidated.

You don’t know that! You have no idea what the heirs did. Either way, it’s not the government’s money, it’s the person’s money that they worked for and earned.

It’s because you’re being double-taxed on the same money. This means, as you indicated, taxes are already being taken as the money moves down the funnel to you. Your paycheck shows you paid Fed and State income taxes and you have the remaining left. Each time, the total amount of money gets sliced-up to pay the…

Wow, a fairly non-partisan article from Lifehacker?? I was very suprised by this. Nice work, Beth.

Yes, it’s true.

You can’t offer something ‘as fact’ without also offering context around the relation of that ‘fact’. You’re trying to state something as an absolute without without context and there’s a word for that: dumb.

The funny thing is, it only takes a few extra minutes to look-up the facts yet they don’t want to do it because it doesn’t fit their narrative or world-view. I change me views (not my values) often, whenever new info comes out or new evidence is proven. Some people (or sites) don’t like to do that.

Wow, calling someone a ‘retard’; how nice, tolerant, and understanding of others! I can see you’re clearly in the ‘enlighted’ crowd....

Using that logic, I can say that children make less then women as an average. You’re not comparing the same things so you can make-up whatever argument you like. A simple Google search of non-partisan sites will show you the many studies that disprove the “women earn less than men at the same job” lie.

“...the Affordable Care Act requires that all major insurance plans cover preventive care for free” That’s not true. These so-called ‘essential care’ items aren’t covered ‘for free’, the cost of them is spread across everyone who has insurance. In fact, you’re paying for everyone else’s care whether you think you…

I’ve had one of these and they’re terrible. There’s no support for your back and the bottom padding is very thin and prone to ripping. A better option would be the Stadium Chair brand: https://www.amazon.com/The-Stadium-Chair-Company-Black/dp/B00345NX3O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1490371033&sr=8-3&keywords=bleacher+seat.…

I’ve had one of these and they’re terrible. There’s no support for your back and the bottom padding is very thin…

The vasts majority of Obamacare was to expand who’s eligible for Medicaid and allow the participating insurance companies to pool those people into exchanges. It also provided extensive benefits to states to move people into Medicaid. According to Medicaid.gov (the government’s site for Medicaid and Medicare):

Unfortunately for you, I don’t believe where you work; anyone can say that. If it’s true, it goes a long way in explaining the big problem we have with finances and how DC views the country. Also, I don’t know what infowars is so you lost me there.

I have looked it up. It’s not really a mixed-bag, it’s fairly consistent. Simple office visits aren’t the problem; it’s the more in-depth procedures and surgeries that are bad. Medical tourism.

It appears I understand the workings of the federal government much more than you. You appear to have a superficial idea of what the government is and that’s a gigantic candy store that supplies people with infinite programs without having to pay for any of it; basically a typical liberal.

The insurance company bears the risk, period. They spread that risk around to all policy holders to minimize their impact to any payout. That’s how insurance works. When they don’t do a good job at that they go out of business, and many have.

UHC takes a big chunk of the budget for every country that has it. Also, there’s a big difference between having health care and having quality health care. Just because other countries provide free (not really free, they tax the hell out of their own people) doesn’t mean it’s good. Thousands of people a year come…

“...it doesn’t outline the job of the Federal government or the individual programs therewithin” I never said it did so your argument is against what you’re saying and now what I’m saying.

Not for the federal government it’s not true. I agree that preventative care has been proven to be beneficial. That’s why I agree with the government providing, with my/our money, help to people who can’t pay for treatment when sick. Help in these instances should be the exception and not the rule.