Principia Discordia

So, if this has been covered already, I'm sorry and I'll hang my head in shame.


What are the arguments against treating healthcare as a public utility?  Other than the "socialist" thing, of course.

Quote from: LMNO on February 25, 2010, 08:18:57 PM
So, if this has been covered already, I'm sorry and I'll hang my head in shame.


What are the arguments against treating healthcare as a public utility?  Other than the "socialist" thing, of course.

1.  Rich people might have to wait in line with poor people or even people with smudgy skin.

2.  Poor people just know they'll be rich, one day.  Details on how this will occur may be lacking, but it will...if corporations are allowed to run things without the mean old government interfering.

Oh, wait.  No socialism thingies.  Okay.

3.  The government can't run anything, and corporations are infallible.  Banks, for example.

Here's the final analysis, LMNO...People have become conditioned to believe that their best interests are bad, and that they should vote for what's best for the rich, because they have been taught that America is the land of opportunity, and that they will magically be among the rich one day (as mentioned above), and they don't want to fuck it up for when THEY have a Bentley and a 30 room mansion. 

This implies a level of stupidity and gullibility that can only be described as awe-inspiring.  The whole health care debate has taught me that self-governance is a joke, and a failed experiment, because the inherent laziness of domesticated primates prevents them from doing something as basic as identifying their best interests.

My recent illness has convinced me that our "health care" system is utterly unjust, and morally evil...and I was on the good end of the stick.  Had I been unemployed, I'd be dead shortly...and this can and does occur every day.

But what can you do, LMNO?  You can't save people that will attempt to kill you for trying.  It's fucking hopeless, when viewed from a realistic point of view.

Yeah.

I wasn't really surprised at the way this all went down, but the complete embrace of a compassionless stance really got to me.  I mean, even monkeys take care of their tribe.

Quote from: LMNO on February 25, 2010, 08:42:31 PM
Yeah.

I wasn't really surprised at the way this all went down, but the complete embrace of a compassionless stance really got to me.  I mean, even monkeys take care of their tribe.

If the dems couldn't pull it off with a supermajority, and they couldn't, then the situation is hopeless.  What's going to happen is that whatever bill finally passes will be a giveaway to health insurance companies, big pharma, or both.

What's really funny about this is that I know a conservatard who makes about $29K/year, who was ranting about how he didn't want to pay for all of this (Yeah, I know, he wouldn't pay a dime in any case, but that's not what Rush told him.).  He was diagnosed with lung cancer last month, and has no health insurance.  He has since learned that the E-room only has to stabilize you, and that no hospital will treat him, because he can't pay and has no assets of sufficient value.

I'd like to feel bad for the guy, I really would...But he was both stupid enough to expound against his own self interest - and heartless enough to condemn poor people to a needless death - so I really can't work up much sympathy for him, despite his rather gruesome upcoming death.  He has finally seen that there's nothing so horrible as drowning because you can't afford the fee for the lifeguard throwing you a life preserver.

He still listens to Rush Limbaugh, incidentally.  People are stupid beyond any hope whatsoever.

Dok -

Excellent analysis. I really can't add to that other than expressing my frustration at the enormous fur ball of injustice and stupidity that is lodged in America's psychic gullet.

I work in the health care industry and we're assaulted on pretty much a weekly basis with the insanity that is going on. I think calling it a 'health care system' suggests a level of organization and order that it quite blatantly doesn't possess.

One of our clients was treated for breast cancer. She was in the ridiculous and unenviable position of regularly phoning her insurance company and shouting at them. For some reason, this poor lady was required to say to them "I kind of need you to pay this, so I won't DIE!!!"

One of Mrs Mang's clients (she works in the financial field) had a message from a client. He wants to take money from his investments to pay for his chemo. Of course, because he wants X dollars right away, he'll get hit with fees & surrender charges and all manner of other bullshit. So, he's trying to find a way to pay for his medications predicated on the rules of an investment company.

Then there's a good family friend. Her mom's got breast cancer as did quite a number of her relatives. She's in a high risk category. Her doctor told her that she really should get genetic testing done. Genetic testing is very expensive. What is my friend doing? She's waiting a few months for her insurance to renew so she can get the tests done and not get hit with the potential 'pre-existing condition' gimmick.

Today I just had an e-mail from a really cool client who I liked working with. She basically had to stop coming to our office because we're not covered under her insurance....even though she experienced the most amount of relief for her back issue by visiting us. 'Your treatments worked best but I'm going to pay for something that wasn't as effective because without the insurance I wouldn't be able to do anything at all.'

I've got examples like this up the wazoo.

America needs to familiarize itself with the AWFUL TROOTHS:

a) America is not the best country in the world. Consulting any index for health, education, crime, standard of living etc etc etc will repeatedly demonstrate that this assertion is false. (Incidentally, the US like number 37 in the world for health standards)

b) Secondly, why the hell does anyone want to go around boasting that they're the 'best country in the world' anyway? It's completely asinine.

c) American health care is the most expensive in the world but it is not the most effective.

d) Since the 1990's, health care costs have spiraled and the chances of people dying of things they didn't need to die of have likewise risen dramatically.

e) Countries with 'evil socialist' medicine provide pretty decent care. Perfect system? No. But what is? However, you won't mind many Brits for example, who are like one of our neighbors who lost his house because of his wife's hospital costs.

f) America already has a system whereby they pay money to the government to look after them in case something happens. It's called 'Social Security' and 'Medicare'. Duh. Social medicine already exists - it's just very small.

g) Just because a country has nationalized health care doesn't mean that rich people would have to wait in lines. There's plenty of private health care in the UK if you want & can pay for it (especially when it comes to Dentistry)

h) ARGHAGHGAGGHHHH......just fucking ARGHGHGHHGHHHH   :argh!:

The UK has dentistry?


I call bullshit.

Quote from: LMNO on February 25, 2010, 08:58:16 PM
The UK has dentistry?


I call bullshit.

:lol:

Mang, nothing you said is unreasonable.  But you don't have a microphone to bloviate into, so you have no credibility whatsoever in America.

That's the sad fact...if you aren't a celebrity, no amount of common fucking sense or facts will get anyone to listen to you.  And seeing as how celebrities are now - and have been for decades - created entities, generated by the people that can afford to do so, the message people receive will be the message in the interests of the rich.

An example of how hilarious this is, is when Rush Limbaugh had his heart scare a few months ago.  Days later, he was on the radio blathering about how he received excellent care with no health insurance.  He didn't bother reminding his audience that he's rich, of course...and the "Ditto, Rush!" calls poured in for hours.

This whole issue is a case of the herd thinning itself.  Unfortunately, it is happening based on non-real criteria.

Dok,

To magnify the absurdity:

One of the financial planners in Mrs Mang's office is Canadian. A well off, Limbaugh loving, Canadian.

So he was about to read aloud what he thought was one of the many wingnut emails he recieves to people in the office. But he stopped mid way through because the missive was pro and not anti the health care bill. Thus he has to back pedal quickly.

Dumbass: Oopss!! Ok...I'm not going to read that.
Mrs Mang: You started it. You mean to tell me that it's right that Mr X is struggling to pay for his meds and his trying to take money from his account?
DA: Uhh...No. But I don't agree with Obama.
Mrs Mang: YOU CAN'T VOTE BECAUSE YOU'RE CANADIAN. DUDE! YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE HEALTHCARE!!!
DA: Uh...well I live here.
Mrs Mang:  :x

This jackass is an ardent supporter (Republican) of a political system that he can't participate in. But it doesn't matter because he's rich and if he wasn't rich he could fuck off back up to the Great White North and still get health care.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:10:06 PM
Dok,

To magnify the absurdity:

One of the financial planners in Mrs Mang's office is Canadian. A well off, Limbaugh loving, Canadian.

Having grown up in Canada, and living in snowbird land, let me assure you that stupidity is far from unknown in the trackless tundra up North.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:10:06 PM
So he was about to read aloud what he thought was one of the many wingnut emails he recieves to people in the office. But he stopped mid way through because the missive was pro and not anti the health care bill. Thus he has to back pedal quickly.

He reads his wingnuttery out loud and you let him live?

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:10:06 PM
Dumbass: Oopss!! Ok...I'm not going to read that.
Mrs Mang: You started it. You mean to tell me that it's right that Mr X is struggling to pay for his meds and his trying to take money from his account?
DA: Uhh...No. But I don't agree with Obama.
Mrs Mang: YOU CAN'T VOTE BECAUSE YOU'RE CANADIAN. DUDE! YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE HEALTHCARE!!!
DA: Uh...well I live here.
Mrs Mang:  :x

This jackass is an ardent supporter (Republican) of a political system that he can't participate in. But it doesn't matter because he's rich and if he wasn't rich he could fuck off back up to the Great White North and still get health care.

And this is the essence of the middle class republican:  "Fuck you, I got mine." 

You can add, "Fuck you, I don't care and you can't MAKE me care."  Aggressive apathy.

This is why I hate people.

In case you want to know how depressing the nature of 'manufactured celebrity' is, read the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/arts/television/24idol.html?no_interstitial


WARNING - CONTAINS INFORMATION DETRIMENTAL TO PEOPLE WHO LIKE MUSIC AND/OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES SERIOUS MUSICIANS

Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 25, 2010, 09:14:41 PM

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:10:06 PM
Dok,

To magnify the absurdity:

One of the financial planners in Mrs Mang's office is Canadian. A well off, Limbaugh loving, Canadian.

Having grown up in Canada, and living in snowbird land, let me assure you that stupidity is far from unknown in the trackless tundra up North.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:10:06 PM
So he was about to read aloud what he thought was one of the many wingnut emails he recieves to people in the office. But he stopped mid way through because the missive was pro and not anti the health care bill. Thus he has to back pedal quickly.

He reads his wingnuttery out loud and you let him live?

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:10:06 PM
Dumbass: Oopss!! Ok...I'm not going to read that.
Mrs Mang: You started it. You mean to tell me that it's right that Mr X is struggling to pay for his meds and his trying to take money from his account?
DA: Uhh...No. But I don't agree with Obama.
Mrs Mang: YOU CAN'T VOTE BECAUSE YOU'RE CANADIAN. DUDE! YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE HEALTHCARE!!!
DA: Uh...well I live here.
Mrs Mang:  :x

This jackass is an ardent supporter (Republican) of a political system that he can't participate in. But it doesn't matter because he's rich and if he wasn't rich he could fuck off back up to the Great White North and still get health care.

And this is the essence of the middle class republican:  "Fuck you, I got mine." 

You can add, "Fuck you, I don't care and you can't MAKE me care."  Aggressive apathy.

This is why I hate people.

* I didn't wish to imply there wasn't Canadian stupidity. I grew up (partly) in St Johns.

* If I had the money to hire an employment lawyer, it's my dream for Mrs Mang's office to be turned into a scene of devastation that would make the most devoted Roman centurion throw up in his mouth a little. My biggest cash cow being the 20 minute phone tirade that Mrs Mang was subjected to when one of the planners did his 'Obama's nothing but a fucking nigger' speech. He was so mad that he then slammed down the phone, called someone else and then started up again.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:16:15 PM
In case you want to know how depressing the nature of 'manufactured celebrity' is, read the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/arts/television/24idol.html?no_interstitial


WARNING - CONTAINS INFORMATION DETRIMENTAL TO PEOPLE WHO LIKE MUSIC AND/OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES SERIOUS MUSICIANS

HAW!  This beats Payola:

Quote from: NY TimesTo promote it, Disney paid Mr. Allen $100,000 to turn to a camera and shout, "I'm going to Disney World" after winning the competition and to visit the park, according to the contracts. He stood to earn another $100,000 for spending a day filming scripted dialogue segments for use in the attraction and for taping a vocal performance for the Walt Disney World Christmas Parade television show.

I want to puke on my fucking boots. 

Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 25, 2010, 09:23:13 PM

I want to puke on my fucking boots. 

You were warned. I used capslock and everything.

Actually, this reminds me of rant I'm brewing. Will stick it in 'Or Kill Me' if it formulates properly.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:21:17 PM

* I didn't wish to imply there wasn't Canadian stupidity. I grew up (partly) in St Johns.

Me, too.  McDougal Street, then Winnepeg Street.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:21:17 PM
* If I had the money to hire an employment lawyer, it's my dream for Mrs Mang's office to be turned into a scene of devastation that would make the most devoted Roman centurion throw up in his mouth a little. My biggest cash cow being the 20 minute phone tirade that Mrs Mang was subjected to when one of the planners did his 'Obama's nothing but a fucking nigger' speech. He was so mad that he then slammed down the phone, called someone else and then started up again.

Holy fuck.  You could probably get someone pro-bono for that.

One of my mechanics started that shit, and I told him to shut the fuck up and get back to work before I fired his racist ass for cause.  I haven't had to deal with it since.  That mechanic hasn't spoken to me about anything but work since, and I couldn't be happier about it.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 09:25:18 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 25, 2010, 09:23:13 PM

I want to puke on my fucking boots. 

You were warned. I used capslock and everything.

Actually, this reminds me of rant I'm brewing. Will stick it in 'Or Kill Me' if it formulates properly.

Can't wait.

I was having a conversation about abortion the other day and I pointed out that supporting universal health care would almost certainly be the best way to reduce abortion, as well as millions of needless deaths of people who are already born.

No one could disagree with me, so the conversation ended.

Quote from: LMNO on February 25, 2010, 08:18:57 PM
So, if this has been covered already, I'm sorry and I'll hang my head in shame.


What are the arguments against treating healthcare as a public utility?  Other than the "socialist" thing, of course.

Guy 1:  Hey, don't you know that smoking is bad for you?

Guy 2:  I've heard about it.  I don't care.

Guy 1:  Yeah, well you're hurting other people with your smoke.

Guy 2:  Dude, I'm outside, nobody is being hurt by my smoke.

Guy 1:  Yeah?  Well, I'll be paying for your medical bills someday, and I don't want to pay for that bullshit.


Theft is theft, even if its for the greater good.  And taking someone's money against their will is, by definition, theft.  One evil doesn't not cancel out another evil.

1+1 does not equal zero.

What kills me, seriously REALLY gets my gourd, is that there's sooo much misinformation that is sooo easily regurgitated and used as home truths. I blame the "Folksiness" that politicians have to adopt in order to seem down-home and honest/believable.  Obama does this too when he's stumping.  Dropping the g's on -ing endings, etc.

So this health care reform could have saved us, could have brought us into the black, eventually.  But, my gawd, instead, there's this whole gestalt that is almost impenetrable.  Perpetuated by Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. and their audiences.  And they do it FOR RATINGS.  Not to spread honesty and good conditions as a result, but for PURE, SHEER RATINGS.

And the people, they don't care.  They don't get it.  They're happy having their ire stirred, because THEIR guy STANK ASS.  He killed their dreams and sent their boys to war.  And then did shit-all to help them out of their credit messes.

But instead of copping to that, they grab the irestick and stir, stir, stir.  It's so much easier than investigating for yourself, or talking to your OWN local/state politician (FACT: most people think their dude in Wash, DC's ok, but HATE HATE HATE his colleagues-in-power...go figure).  No, instead, let's turn on Fox Friends and listen to Gretchen-my-white-ass-knows-nothin'-but-showbiz-and-beauty-queening bloviate about her flatulent ignorance.  Because Bob knows Gretchen's the bees knees on expertise on EVERYFUCKINGTHING American!

...ADD TO THAT

...ADD TO THAT

MOTHERFUCKER

...ADD. To.  THAT--We alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll know someone who's lost their home, lost their job, has no insurance, dying from cancer and can't pay, was in the hospital for an accident/heart thing/has to pay $$$ for drugs

AND CAN'T FUCKING AFFORD IT!

So why?  WHY WHY WHY does providing health care, for our fucking FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS, sound like such a horrible, terrible, no-good idea?

WHY?

WHY?

FUCK the red states, FUCK the blue states that are really red under their blue clothing, and FUCK the people in Washington.  FUCK this whole country.

In the ear.

Forever.

Amen.

:crankey:

Since I'm a glutton for punishment: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100225142622AAzsLML

Notice the Ronpaulbot that says "Corporate health care fails therefore the government sucks."  :horrormirth:

Quote from: Jason Wabash on February 25, 2010, 10:34:05 PM
Since I'm a glutton for punishment: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100225142622AAzsLML

Notice the Ronpaulbot that says "Corporate health care fails therefore the government sucks."  :horrormirth:

Yahoo Answers?  :crankey:

You might as well as the people who post in Youtube comments.

Quote from: Hoopla on February 25, 2010, 10:26:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 25, 2010, 08:18:57 PM
So, if this has been covered already, I'm sorry and I'll hang my head in shame.


What are the arguments against treating healthcare as a public utility?  Other than the "socialist" thing, of course.

Guy 1:  Hey, don't you know that smoking is bad for you?

Guy 2:  I've heard about it.  I don't care.

Guy 1:  Yeah, well you're hurting other people with your smoke.

Guy 2:  Dude, I'm outside, nobody is being hurt by my smoke.

Guy 1:  Yeah?  Well, I'll be paying for your medical bills someday, and I don't want to pay for that bullshit.


Theft is theft, even if its for the greater good.  And taking someone's money against their will is, by definition, theft.  One evil doesn't not cancel out another evil.

1+1 does not equal zero.

Are you opposed to taxation and public works in general?

Because I am irritated with how the Parks Department uses their funding, yet because it was acquired through majority vote I have no choice but to give money to them, however unwilling I may be.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 25, 2010, 11:23:10 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 25, 2010, 10:26:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 25, 2010, 08:18:57 PM
So, if this has been covered already, I'm sorry and I'll hang my head in shame.


What are the arguments against treating healthcare as a public utility?  Other than the "socialist" thing, of course.

Guy 1:  Hey, don't you know that smoking is bad for you?

Guy 2:  I've heard about it.  I don't care.

Guy 1:  Yeah, well you're hurting other people with your smoke.

Guy 2:  Dude, I'm outside, nobody is being hurt by my smoke.

Guy 1:  Yeah?  Well, I'll be paying for your medical bills someday, and I don't want to pay for that bullshit.


Theft is theft, even if its for the greater good.  And taking someone's money against their will is, by definition, theft.  One evil doesn't not cancel out another evil.

1+1 does not equal zero.

Are you opposed to taxation and public works in general?

Because I am irritated with how the Parks Department uses their funding, yet because it was acquired through majority vote I have no choice but to give money to them, however unwilling I may be.

I am opposed to mandatory taxation, but think that things like roads and whatnot need taxation to exist, so my nutty solution would be voluntary taxation for the things people want, and the things people didn't want, wouldn't happen. 

I know to a lot of people this makes me sound like a baby-eating monster, but I don't think I am... I just don't think mandatory tax is anything other than theft, and therefor not right.

And, even more nutty, I believe that most people are essentially good and would volunteer to pay for things that are important, including healthcare... it just wouldn't be through the government.

Democracy is kind of already like that (in theory), mandatory taxation (and if people are intelligent to realise that some things need taxation, people would voluntarily pay tax (maybe) anyway) that gets spent on things that people want, and things that people don't want doesn't happen (in theory).

The problem with that Utopian dream of voluntary taxation is that I think almost no one will want to pay the taxes, but almost everyone will want to use the services.

I do think that property tax is theft; to be forced to eternally pay taxes on property you have already purchased seems absurd. I think that, at most, there should be a sales tax, and even that should be pretty marginal. I pay nearly $3k/year in property tax, and from what I understand that's not even all that high compared to other states.

Income tax, on the other hand, and fee-for-service type taxes, I don't have a problem with. Taxing gas to pay for roads, for instance; brilliant and obvious. But I don't see a way to do that with parks or sidewalks.

Maybe taxpayers should be able to check boxes for what they want their money used for, but the obvious problem with that is that it would vary wildly from year to year depending on the issue du jour, giving some programs gross surpluses some years and absolutely gutting them on others.

Oh, and my property taxes go toward paying for schools and services that the renters in my neighborhood, however much more they earn than I do, use but don't have to pay for.

And then there's the absurdity of self-employment tax, made doubly absurd because if you're self-employed you don't have the option of drawing unemployment if your business tanks.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 12:37:32 AM
Oh, and my property taxes go toward paying for schools and services that the renters in my neighborhood, however much more they earn than I do, use but don't have to pay for.

And then there's the absurdity of self-employment tax, made doubly absurd because if you're self-employed you don't have the option of drawing unemployment if your business tanks.

If the property owners who are renting to the renters don't pass the property taxes down as part of the rent then they are fools.

There is no way in hell anyone would be stupid enough to pay voluntary taxes. People aren't wired that way. Most people don't work for rational long term goals. They'll take the short term gain (not paying any taxes) over long term goods (public works) while expecting everyone else to pick up the slack.

Personally, I see taxes as an entry fee to being a member of civilized society. Taxes pay for the infrastructure we need for basic survival. We need roads, water treatment/sewage, health care, power grids, etc. or society collapses very quickly. If you enjoy the fruits of this society then you share a burden of the cost for keeping it going. If you do not wish to be a part of society then you should be allowed to go off the grid or move to a different society.

If taxes were theft, you wouldn't have roads, water treatment, health care, etc.

Maybe theft works differently in Canada.

Do thieves there mug you and then give you their leather jacket? Or steal your car but paint your house?
Break in, do your dishes, mop the floor, take out your garbage, clean the toilet, stock your fridge, but steal your TV?

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 26, 2010, 02:33:09 AM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 12:37:32 AM
Oh, and my property taxes go toward paying for schools and services that the renters in my neighborhood, however much more they earn than I do, use but don't have to pay for.

And then there's the absurdity of self-employment tax, made doubly absurd because if you're self-employed you don't have the option of drawing unemployment if your business tanks.

If the property owners who are renting to the renters don't pass the property taxes down as part of the rent then they are fools.

Of course they are; however, there again there is a huge disparity because for being a landlord to be profitable, the rent must be higher than the payment on the house. Property taxes are often "frozen" until a house changes hands or is remodeled, so property owners who bought a house ten years ago might only be paying $800/year in taxes on a house that is of the same market value as mine.

The way property taxes are structured here is simply stupid.

wrong topic

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 12:37:32 AM

And then there's the absurdity of self-employment tax, made doubly absurd because if you're self-employed you don't have the option of drawing unemployment if your business tanks.

That's why you incorporate as an S-Corp, or even an LLC. Then you can pay yourself a salary and if the business tanks you CAN draw unemployment.

Quote from: Mangrove on February 25, 2010, 08:55:29 PM
Dok -

Excellent analysis. I really can't add to that other than expressing my frustration at the enormous fur ball of injustice and stupidity that is lodged in America's psychic gullet.

I work in the health care industry and we're assaulted on pretty much a weekly basis with the insanity that is going on. I think calling it a 'health care system' suggests a level of organization and order that it quite blatantly doesn't possess.

One of our clients was treated for breast cancer. She was in the ridiculous and unenviable position of regularly phoning her insurance company and shouting at them. For some reason, this poor lady was required to say to them "I kind of need you to pay this, so I won't DIE!!!"

One of Mrs Mang's clients (she works in the financial field) had a message from a client. He wants to take money from his investments to pay for his chemo. Of course, because he wants X dollars right away, he'll get hit with fees & surrender charges and all manner of other bullshit. So, he's trying to find a way to pay for his medications predicated on the rules of an investment company.

Then there's a good family friend. Her mom's got breast cancer as did quite a number of her relatives. She's in a high risk category. Her doctor told her that she really should get genetic testing done. Genetic testing is very expensive. What is my friend doing? She's waiting a few months for her insurance to renew so she can get the tests done and not get hit with the potential 'pre-existing condition' gimmick.

Today I just had an e-mail from a really cool client who I liked working with. She basically had to stop coming to our office because we're not covered under her insurance....even though she experienced the most amount of relief for her back issue by visiting us. 'Your treatments worked best but I'm going to pay for something that wasn't as effective because without the insurance I wouldn't be able to do anything at all.'

I've got examples like this up the wazoo.

America needs to familiarize itself with the AWFUL TROOTHS:

a) America is not the best country in the world. Consulting any index for health, education, crime, standard of living etc etc etc will repeatedly demonstrate that this assertion is false. (Incidentally, the US like number 37 in the world for health standards)

b) Secondly, why the hell does anyone want to go around boasting that they're the 'best country in the world' anyway? It's completely asinine.

c) American health care is the most expensive in the world but it is not the most effective.

d) Since the 1990's, health care costs have spiraled and the chances of people dying of things they didn't need to die of have likewise risen dramatically.

e) Countries with 'evil socialist' medicine provide pretty decent care. Perfect system? No. But what is? However, you won't mind many Brits for example, who are like one of our neighbors who lost his house because of his wife's hospital costs.

f) America already has a system whereby they pay money to the government to look after them in case something happens. It's called 'Social Security' and 'Medicare'. Duh. Social medicine already exists - it's just very small.

g) Just because a country has nationalized health care doesn't mean that rich people would have to wait in lines. There's plenty of private health care in the UK if you want & can pay for it (especially when it comes to Dentistry)

h) ARGHAGHGAGGHHHH......just fucking ARGHGHGHHGHHHH   :argh!:

This needs to be printed out, copied a zillion times, and dumped on John "I love my tanning bed" Bohner.  I really hate that guy. 

I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

Quote from: Hoopla on February 25, 2010, 10:26:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 25, 2010, 08:18:57 PM
So, if this has been covered already, I'm sorry and I'll hang my head in shame.


What are the arguments against treating healthcare as a public utility?  Other than the "socialist" thing, of course.

Guy 1:  Hey, don't you know that smoking is bad for you?

Guy 2:  I've heard about it.  I don't care.

Guy 1:  Yeah, well you're hurting other people with your smoke.

Guy 2:  Dude, I'm outside, nobody is being hurt by my smoke.

Guy 1:  Yeah?  Well, I HOPE YOU DIE A SLOW, PAINFUL AND HORRIBLE DEATH, WITH CANCER EATING YOUR ORGANS FROM THE INSIDE OUT AS YOU SPLATTER YOUR CHILDREN WITH THE BLOOD SPLUTTERING FROM YOUR MOUTH, GASPING FOR THE NEXT BREATH; AND I WILL BE THERE, LAUGHING AT YOU, BECAUSE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK FOR A FELLOW HUMAN BEING.  CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO PAY TAXES.

See, that's kind of how it sounds to me.

Let's say that we have two types of citizens, Free Citizens and Taxed Citizens. Taxed Citizens have pretty much the exact same life that we all do right now. They go to the BMV, pay $40 and get a driver's license. "Free Citizens" that don't pay taxes, on the other hand, must enter into a contract with the US government and pay substantially more for the privilege of driving on tax funded roads. Taxed Citizens can call 911 and get an immediate response from their local cops, fire dept or EMS unit. "Free Citizens" must enter into a private contract with private services, OR be billed by the 911 service after the fact. Taxed Citizens have full access to the National Parks, "Free Citizens" must pay a fee in order to visit a park that is funded by tax dollars. Etc Etc

The only 'rights' guaranteed to "Free Citizens" would be the ones specifically enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Everything else would cost a fee.

If the Conservitards want to "Go GALT" we should let them, we should help them. If they choose to be a "Free Citizen" then they no longer have to worry about the SOCIALISTS taking their money and providing them with services in return. Instead, they have to purchase each service individually at a higher cost.

I would wager that within a decade, most 'Free Citizens' would reconsider their choice and stop whining every time Congress was about to pass a bill.

It seems to me that the best way to kill the movement is to give them what they want.

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 03:11:28 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 25, 2010, 10:26:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 25, 2010, 08:18:57 PM
So, if this has been covered already, I'm sorry and I'll hang my head in shame.


What are the arguments against treating healthcare as a public utility?  Other than the "socialist" thing, of course.

Guy 1:  Hey, don't you know that smoking is bad for you?

Guy 2:  I've heard about it.  I don't care.

Guy 1:  Yeah, well you're hurting other people with your smoke.

Guy 2:  Dude, I'm outside, nobody is being hurt by my smoke.

Guy 1:  Yeah?  Well, I HOPE YOU DIE A SLOW, PAINFUL AND HORRIBLE DEATH, WITH CANCER EATING YOUR ORGANS FROM THE INSIDE OUT AS YOU SPLATTER YOUR CHILDREN WITH THE BLOOD SPLUTTERING FROM YOUR MOUTH, GASPING FOR THE NEXT BREATH; AND I WILL BE THERE, LAUGHING AT YOU, BECAUSE I DON'T GIVE A FUCK FOR A FELLOW HUMAN BEING.  CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO PAY TAXES.

See, that's kind of how it sounds to me.

That's part of the problem.  People can't seem to disagree with others without believing that the person they disagree with is a horrible baby-eating monster.

Why couldn't people put the money they would have been putting from taxes toward healthcare into a charity that would basically deal with health issues the same way the proposed healthcare benefits would?  Why would the automatic assumption be that anyone would be laughing at a person dying?  How cynical does one need to be to have so little faith in their fellow men?

If someone hates smoking and smokers they shouldn't have to pay for their recuperation.  They could donate the money that would have been going to taxes to something like the Heart and Lung association, and those who DID want to smoke would give their money to a different organization which was set up for people who smoked, or were fat, or whatever the demonized aspect of their behaviour is today or tomorrow.

The money the government would be taking is here, we have it, why would you choose not to use it in a way that would benefit you later?  But why does it need to be a blanket system, and why through the government? 

Why couldn't people put the money they would have been putting from taxes toward healthcare into a charity that would basically deal with health issues the same way the proposed healthcare benefits would?


Isn't that just a semantic difference?  You pay your taxes, a percentage of which is used for healthcare.  Whether it's handled by the gvt or by some "charity", what's the difference?

Your example makes it sound like you don't want to help people.

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 03:58:08 PM
Why couldn't people put the money they would have been putting from taxes toward healthcare into a charity that would basically deal with health issues the same way the proposed healthcare benefits would?


Isn't that just a semantic difference?  You pay your taxes, a percentage of which is used for healthcare.  Whether it's handled by the gvt or by some "charity", what's the difference?

Your example makes it sound like you don't want to help people.

It's not that, I am for healthcare, I'm arguing why some people are against it. Which is what you asked for.

But, when we pay taxes it goes a bunch of places that we don't know about... what if someone doesn't give a wit for the arts in any way shape or form?  Why should they be shelling out for government grants for artists?  They shouldn't have to.  If they are forced to, that is theft.   If you take my money and then tell me how its going to be used, that is theft.  Or maybe it's only theft in Canada.

If healthcare was set up in the way I described people would know exactly where their money is going.  Why is that such a problem?

LMNO,

It sounds like you are implying that it should be illegal to be selfish or an asshole...

i mean, i know that's not how you would put it, but isn't that just semantics?  people should be forced to do something because the 'generosity' would result ultimately in their benefit, and declining to be generous would result in charges?
I'm not saying that as an indictment, necessarily.  perhaps Roger is right and self rule is a failed experiment.  perhaps we should not have determination over the allocation of our labor, because we have the tendency to take care of only ourselves and the concomitant inefficiencies are a limitation on what we can do when viewed from the level of a society....
Of course, that line of thinking does not have a clear cut boundary and there are those among us that would oppose the efforts to move in that direction.  It makes me uncomfortable, and sends many into a froth, and I can't understand why you can't see the rationale behind their position, even if you don't agree with it...

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 02:24:02 PM
I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

It works at the state level in Oregon, it's just only for the very very low-income... and it's fantastic that we have it. It doesn't cover most of the working class and lower-middle-class though.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 04:42:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 02:24:02 PM
I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

It works at the state level in Oregon, it's just only for the very very low-income... and it's fantastic that we have it. It doesn't cover most of the working class and lower-middle-class though.

Hm... interesting.
why hasn't it been extended to the working and lower-middle class?
and why aren't the more progressed blue states all doing this to whatever level they wish?

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 04:55:42 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 04:42:51 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 02:24:02 PM
I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

It works at the state level in Oregon, it's just only for the very very low-income... and it's fantastic that we have it. It doesn't cover most of the working class and lower-middle-class though.

Hm... interesting.
why hasn't it been extended to the working and lower-middle class?
and why aren't the more progressed blue states all doing this to whatever level they wish?

It has been expanded recently to cover everyone in the state who is under the age of 18, regardless of their family income level, and I anticipate that the income maximum to qualify will eventually be raised.

I honestly don't know why people don't want socialized medicine, instead of the raping insurance wolves that profit off illness.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 05:08:28 PM
It has been expanded recently to cover everyone in the state who is under the age of 18, regardless of their family income level, and I anticipate that the income maximum to qualify will eventually be raised.

I honestly don't know why people don't want socialized medicine, instead of the raping insurance wolves that profit off illness.

That sounds fantastic.  if the several states are able to successfully implement social medicine according to the desires of their citizens, then more people would get what they want, there would be less people forced to do what they don't want, and there would be competition between the socialized medicine structures used, that would work to refine them further.
why isn't this possibility being enacted by those that support socialized medicine?
and why isn't it being raised as an argument against a federal system by those opposed?

as far as your last statement, i guess there are people that view it as a false dichotomy.

WHY isn't it implemented at the state level?  Lobbyists.  Insurance lobbyists are huge and have a great pull right now.

Add to that the the lower middle and working classes probably make up the majority of Americans in general, and what you're looking at is state budget increases that will break the banks of most state government budgets.

State budgets run on taxes and capital gains increases.  In a "bear" market where job losses are on the rise, and more and more of us are unable to pay our bills and filing for unemployment, our state budgets are now in the red.  Constantly.

You won't find state legislators voluntarily putting down the lobbyist yummies to start up a comprehsensive state run health plan UNLESS they have no other fucking choice.

What brings them to that level is diverse and pretty complicated (i.e. usually a lawsuit).

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 04:24:26 PM
LMNO,

It sounds like you are implying that it should be illegal to be selfish or an asshole...

i mean, i know that's not how you would put it, but isn't that just semantics?  people should be forced to do something because the 'generosity' would result ultimately in their benefit, and declining to be generous would result in charges?
I'm not saying that as an indictment, necessarily.  perhaps Roger is right and self rule is a failed experiment.  perhaps we should not have determination over the allocation of our labor, because we have the tendency to take care of only ourselves and the concomitant inefficiencies are a limitation on what we can do when viewed from the level of a society….
Of course, that line of thinking does not have a clear cut boundary and there are those among us that would oppose the efforts to move in that direction.  It makes me uncomfortable, and sends many into a froth, and I can't understand why you can't see the rationale behind their position, even if you don't agree with it...

Because in the end this individual will also be "stealing" from society.  The inevitability in THIS reality that Ratatosk's example of the private vs. the public citizen is impossible. 

NO one wants to make you pull out your insurance card when you are dying in a car wreck before they load you up in an ambulance.

NO one wants to see if you've been "marked" by society for public assistance when your house is on fire, when you've been robbed, when you've lost your job, when your spouse is dying in a hospital and your kids need bread, milk and cheese.

Come on.  Real world.  This world.  And selfish assholes who don't like being taxed should stop walking on my roads, drinking my clean water and sending their kids to my schools.  (ok, not really, but that's where I end up going when I think of how dumb it is to think you could throw the government away like that and NOT use any of it, ever, again)

Jenne,

if lobbyists are the issue (and i believe they are, well actually i think it is the elected representatives cowing to the lobbyists that are the problem), then that is the issue that should be addressed.  adding a large federal program that will funnel tons of money is only going to attract further abuse of lobbying, don't you think?

as far as your response to my comment to LMNO, it sounds like you are saying that it is emergency response that must be administered without regard to determining the voluntary status of the individual.  I totally agree.  we should not privatize the fire dept.  we should not privatize the police.  the emergency room should admit you without first asking your insurance status....
wait.  isn't that the way it already is?

please don't lump me (or others who are opposed to federal healthcare) in with people who's views i (or they) never espoused.  Not everyone opposed to this plan is an extremist.  Not saying that you are, but just wanted to put that out there...

Iptuous,
just doesn't want to get emotional in the debate...

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 05:14:31 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 05:08:28 PM
It has been expanded recently to cover everyone in the state who is under the age of 18, regardless of their family income level, and I anticipate that the income maximum to qualify will eventually be raised.

I honestly don't know why people don't want socialized medicine, instead of the raping insurance wolves that profit off illness.

That sounds fantastic.  if the several states are able to successfully implement social medicine according to the desires of their citizens, then more people would get what they want, there would be less people forced to do what they don't want, and there would be competition between the socialized medicine structures used, that would work to refine them further.
why isn't this possibility being enacted by those that support socialized medicine?
and why isn't it being raised as an argument against a federal system by those opposed?

One of the major draw backs to doing it at the local level instead of federal is that the states that need it the most already don't have enough money. Some places in the Deep South have health care systems that are barely better than third world countries and don't have enough taxes coming in to cover everyone who needs it. A federal system would make it easy to pool resources and get help to where it is needed the most. Yes, that would "redistribute the wealth" from rich Blue states to poor Red states. That seems to be the only solution at this point though.

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 06:14:46 PM
Jenne,

if lobbyists are the issue (and i believe they are, well actually i think it is the elected representatives cowing to the lobbyists that are the problem), then that is the issue that should be addressed.  adding a large federal program that will funnel tons of money is only going to attract further abuse of lobbying, don't you think?

as far as your response to my comment to LMNO, it sounds like you are saying that it is emergency response that must be administered without regard to determining the voluntary status of the individual.  I totally agree.  we should not privatize the fire dept.  we should not privatize the police.  the emergency room should admit you without first asking your insurance status....
wait.  isn't that the way it already is?

please don't lump me (or others who are opposed to federal healthcare) in with people who's views i (or they) never espoused.  Not everyone opposed to this plan is an extremist.  Not saying that you are, but just wanted to put that out there...

Iptuous,
just doesn't want to get emotional in the debate...

Well, I was taking your response to LMNO as he was responding to the others, so I apologize if I lumped you in.  Rat's example was a direct response to a lot of the prior discussion, I thought.

Anyway, I get emotional, myself, because these are the issues shaping the force of today's crises when it comes to the bankruptcy of our state governments.  The California PTA has just joined a lawsuit agains the state of California with the state board of education association.  This is going to be ugly, most likely.  And I'm all for it.

But what does it say about what's going on in the state government if you have to SUE it to get your goods and services taken care of?  We spend more on imprisoning people than we do on educating our children.  What's wrong here?

And it's not like the prisoners have a cushy existence out there, it's just that we'd rather spend money putting them and keeping them in there than preventing it.

A fundamental mindset change is needed.  So yes, I get emotional, because objectivity doesn't win out here--this is my street, my neighborhood, my school, my house that are going to be affected.  My husband's JOB is nonprofit healthcare.

The "selfish, asshole, 'taxed-enough-already'" bullshit just only goes so far with me.  It has no other grounds than to say, "I don't wanna, and I resent that you make me."  Without further recourse into a viable alternative solution.  Relying upon CHARITY in a time like this?  When your fellow neighbor is also "taxed enough already" and losing ground in their finances?  Really?  Come on.

Quote from: Jenne on February 26, 2010, 06:32:47 PMRelying upon CHARITY in a time like this?  When your fellow neighbor is also "taxed enough already" and losing ground in their finances?  Really?  Come on.

charity |ˈ ch aritē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1. the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.


So...

choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good


Guess I need to re-think my morals... I had always gone with the line of thought that said the ability to make a decision consciously was what made an action a virtue or otherwise.  I guess my whole world view was backwards.  Distressing.

so·ci·e·ty -
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.


If you choose to participate in a society, you choose to help those in need who are of your society.

Quote from: Jason Wabash on February 26, 2010, 06:21:50 PM
...Yes, that would "redistribute the wealth" from rich Blue states to poor Red states. That seems to be the only solution at this point though.

So you're saying that the people that are trying so hard to get the passed are doing it as a self sacrifice to aid those that are trying so hard to resist it?
there's something about a horse and water that's on the tip of my tongue...
how about the rich blue states just make some charitable contributions to the poor rednecks.  maybe it would help their image a bit.

Quote from: Jenne on February 26, 2010, 06:32:47 PM
But what does it say about what's going on in the state government if you have to SUE it to get your goods and services taken care of?  We spend more on imprisoning people than we do on educating our children.  What's wrong here?

Perhaps it says that govt. isn't the best way of administering services if it can be avoided in any way.  Perhaps it says that having a monopoly on force is an irrisistable attractant to those that would use it for corrupt purposes, and linking this to quality of life things is asking for it in the long run, even though it seems good on paper....
just thinking out loud here...

Quote from: Jenne on February 26, 2010, 06:32:47 PM
The "selfish, asshole, 'taxed-enough-already'" bullshit just only goes so far with me.  It has no other grounds than to say, "I don't wanna, and I resent that you make me."  Without further recourse into a viable alternative solution.  Relying upon CHARITY in a time like this?  When your fellow neighbor is also "taxed enough already" and losing ground in their finances?  Really?  Come on.

See, i view the 'I resent that you make me.' as not only a valid defense, but as a preferred default position.  I view those that wish to implement social plans when there is significant opposition to it to be inherently violent.

Look,  I feel that the nation would be much safer if every single citizen were armed and trained in the use of an open carry weapon.  I believe that the rate of crime would drop dramatically if all school children were taught the proper use and respect of a pistol in junior high.  I can point to studies to back up what I'm saying and juggle facts an figures to show that I know better that those who are opposed to this notion.  So let's do it...
I'm guessing you think that's retarded.
Well. It is.
It would be fucking retarded to push my beliefs on you and force your participation in something that you don't believe, even if I'm completely convinced that I know better than you.  Even if I think it would have huge positive effects on our economy, and save countless lives.
Its just not right.



Iptuous,
almost always has his stupid analogies shown to be invalid prima fascie, and regrets it before he's even done typing....

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 06:49:54 PM
so·ci·e·ty -
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.


If you choose to participate in a society, you choose to help those in need who are of your society.

i believe you are conflating society and state....
one is amorphous and subtle, the other uses jackboots and calls you out.
i know you aren't suggesting that we get to choose whether or not to participate under the state....

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 06:44:30 PM
choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good

Voluntarily is great and all, but you know what happens to people who try to rely on charity to get healthcare?

They fucking die.

Well, that's a can o' worms, innit?

You choose to live here.  It ain't North Korea, you won't get shot if you renounce your citizenship.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 26, 2010, 07:01:42 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 06:44:30 PM
choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good

Voluntarily is great and all, but you know what happens to people who try to rely on charity to get healthcare?

They fucking die.

:cn:

I have a question for everyone who is opposed to socialized healthcare and believes the poor should rely on charity for their healthcare:

How much do you give to medical charity funds annually?

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 07:11:34 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 26, 2010, 07:01:42 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 06:44:30 PM
choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good

Voluntarily is great and all, but you know what happens to people who try to rely on charity to get healthcare?

They fucking die.

:cn:

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 07:11:35 PM
I have a question for everyone who is opposed to socialized healthcare and believes the poor should rely on charity for their healthcare:

How much do you give to medical charity funds annually?

I give to Diabetes and Breast Cancer charities annually, and the rest I don't because my taxes already cover it.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 07:12:18 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 07:11:34 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 26, 2010, 07:01:42 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 06:44:30 PM
choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good

Voluntarily is great and all, but you know what happens to people who try to rely on charity to get healthcare?

They fucking die.

:cn:

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage

Charity as it is now, sure, but you know that's not what I'm talking about.  What I'm talking about has never been tried, so there is no way to know.

Also, I would like to make clear that if universal healthcare was something I needed to vote on (it isn't here - at least yet) I would vote in favour of it.  I don't think my ideas are practical in our current culture, but that also doesn't mean I think its completely right.  It is, though, the best we have at the moment.  I just think there are better ways it could be done.

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 07:13:42 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 07:11:35 PM
I have a question for everyone who is opposed to socialized healthcare and believes the poor should rely on charity for their healthcare:

How much do you give to medical charity funds annually?

I give to Diabetes and Breast Cancer charities annually, and the rest I don't because my taxes already cover it.

I should probably have specified, those of you who are opposed and don't live in countries that already have socialized medicine.

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 07:11:34 PM

Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 26, 2010, 07:01:42 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 06:44:30 PM
choosing voluntarily to give money to those in need = bad

being forced to give money to those in need = good

Voluntarily is great and all, but you know what happens to people who try to rely on charity to get healthcare?

They fucking die.

:cn:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/12/2289?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=wilper&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

Note that this doesn't include people who have insurance but get tossed out into the street when they get sick.

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 07:13:42 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 07:11:35 PM
I have a question for everyone who is opposed to socialized healthcare and believes the poor should rely on charity for their healthcare:

How much do you give to medical charity funds annually?

I give to Diabetes and Breast Cancer charities annually, and the rest I don't because my taxes already cover it.

Are those treatment charities or research 'charities'.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 26, 2010, 07:21:05 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 07:13:42 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 07:11:35 PM
I have a question for everyone who is opposed to socialized healthcare and believes the poor should rely on charity for their healthcare:

How much do you give to medical charity funds annually?

I give to Diabetes and Breast Cancer charities annually, and the rest I don't because my taxes already cover it.

Are those treatment charities or research 'charities'.

Now that you mention it, the Diabetes one is a research charity.  Not sure why you needed the sarcastic quotation marks, though.  You don't think research charities are valid charities?

No I don't, medical research charities are a way for pharmaceuticals to get other people to pay the R&D cost, but keep all of the profit.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 26, 2010, 07:26:01 PM
No I don't, medical research charities are a way for pharmaceuticals to get other people to pay the R&D cost, but keep all of the profit.

Wow.

So how do you expect any diseases to be cured?  Wishful thinking?

Presumably it would come out of the 100 billion the people profiting from such research make in profit every year.

Wait, so you bitch about the charity instead of the Pharm company?

Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 26, 2010, 07:30:58 PM
Presumably it would come out of the 100 billion the people profiting from such research make in profit every year.

ooooooooooooooooook then...

Quote from: Payne on February 26, 2010, 07:32:17 PM
Wait, so you bitch about the charity instead of the Pharm company?

I bitch about the pharm companies too.  But the charities don't actually accomplish much besides making people feel good and helping pharma.

Exception, charities that are focused on diseases pharma has no interest in, like Malaria.  Pharma isn't going to try and cure diseases that only affect people who can't afford to pay, no matter how much money it has.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 26, 2010, 07:42:54 PM

Quote from: Payne on February 26, 2010, 07:32:17 PM
Wait, so you bitch about the charity instead of the Pharm company?

I bitch about the pharm companies too.  But the charities don't actually accomplish much besides making people feel good and helping pharma.

Exception, charities that are focused on diseases pharma has no interest in, like Malaria.  Pharma isn't going to try and cure diseases that only affect people who can't afford to pay, no matter how much money it has.

I still don't see what the problem is with research charities. They DO actually pay into the research (as they advertise), and they have no interest in the profit anyway (at least - no charity I would support would have an interest in the profit). If you have issues on the distribution of drugs and the ethics of Big Pharmaceuticals, then surely all the disgust should be directed solely at those companies?

If the discussion is about healthcare, donating to a research charity does not necessarily translate into helping people afford their treatment, nor does it help lower the cost of the eventual drug or treatment when it becomes available.

If I gave $1M to cure cancer, none of that will go to anyone actually seeking cancer treatment.

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 08:00:19 PM
If the discussion is about healthcare, donating to a research charity does not necessarily translate into helping people afford their treatment, nor does it help lower the cost of the eventual drug or treatment when it becomes available.

If I gave $1M to cure cancer, none of that will go to anyone actually seeking cancer treatment.

Ah.

Well, that's a different matter then.

I just picked up on the odd (to me) discrimination against one type of charity against another, forgetting the context of the discussion. Sorry.

Quote from: Jenne on February 26, 2010, 05:49:28 PM

Because in the end this individual will also be "stealing" from society.  The inevitability in THIS reality that Ratatosk's example of the private vs. the public citizen is impossible. 

NO one wants to make you pull out your insurance card when you are dying in a car wreck before they load you up in an ambulance.

Those services would be free for Taxed Citizens and "Free" Citizens would get a bill for the service. The EMS crew wouldn't need to check first. However, EMS crews already check for a number of things, having been a JW, I can tell ya that they check wallets for things like "No Blood Transfusions" or "Allergic to Foo" or "Free Citizen, please send your bill to 123 My St."

Quote
NO one wants to see if you've been "marked" by society for public assistance when your house is on fire, when you've been robbed, when you've lost your job, when your spouse is dying in a hospital and your kids need bread, milk and cheese.

See, with this one I disagree with. If a citizen says "I don't want to participate in the social safety net provided through taxation" then I'm fine with them dying in the street, along with their wife and kids. I think that a good society should provide options for their members, they should be able to provide food stamps, welfare, the dole, or whatever services are necessary... but equally, if a human being says "I want no part of this social system" then I think their wishes should be respected, even if that means they're homeless and starving.

Quote
Come on.  Real world.  This world.  And selfish assholes who don't like being taxed should stop walking on my roads, drinking my clean water and sending their kids to my schools.  (ok, not really, but that's where I end up going when I think of how dumb it is to think you could throw the government away like that and NOT use any of it, ever, again)

I think its incredibly stupid to believe that government should have little or no role in society. I think its terribly naive to think that we shouldn't pay taxes... but I also think that we all have the inherent RIGHT to self-determination. I think that society has a responsibility to provide options, but not to force those options on people that don't wish it. This is the biggest problem I have with the liberal viewpoint. I agree entirely with the idea of members of society helping each other, as long as they're not forced on everyone. If this idealistic situation with Free vs Taxed citizens existed, I would be a taxed citizen. I would give to charities, just as I do now. However, I would fully support the decision of other citizens that wanted nothing to do with the social system, its services or its safety net. If that means that they end up homeless with cancer, then so be it. They made the choice.

I think that society should OFFER a HAND, but if the person on the ground says "I don't need your help! Leave me alone!" then we should let them lie there.

Guns for people that want guns, no guns for people that don't want guns.
Drugs for people that want drugs, no drugs for people that don't want drugs.
Social Services for people that want social services, no social services for people that don't want social services.

Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy and don't take crap from anyone.

The Guns and Dope party has the correct motorcycle ;-)

I've thought about that model before, of services only provided to those that choose to pay taxes.

The problem is that the tiny number of people who have 95% of the wealth are going to be the ones who don't want to pay taxes in exchange for services.

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 08:00:19 PM
If the discussion is about healthcare, donating to a research charity does not necessarily translate into helping people afford their treatment, nor does it help lower the cost of the eventual drug or treatment when it becomes available.

If I gave $1M to cure cancer, none of that will go to anyone actually seeking cancer treatment.

This.

Research charities are completely beside the point and irrelevant to the conversation. Donating to them is not donating to charities that provide healthcare services, and that is what we are discussing.

Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

And I believe that society should offer help to its weakest members, but that a strong society shouldn't force anything on any of its members.

Rule by force is slavery.

Quote from: Ratatosk on February 26, 2010, 08:17:20 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

And I believe that society should offer help to its weakest members, but that a strong society shouldn't force anything on any of its members.

Rule by force is slavery.

What does this mean in a practical application? It sounds like a meaningless slogan.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

What happens when people start abusing the system? 

Do you know how many looney hypochondriacs I know who are at the doctor three or four times a month, because the DON'T have to pay for it?

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 08:22:21 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:27:59 PM
What happens when people start abusing the system? 

Do you know how many looney hypochondriacs I know who are at the doctor three or four times a month, because the DON'T have to pay for it?

I bet there are fewer people doing this every year (and if there's nothing wrong with them, a mere office visit isn't very expensive) than there are people who die of conditions that would have been treatable had they been insured.

Nigel,
that's why i think everything that can possibly be done at the state level should be left to the states,  there would be competition of systems, and those that wish to be governed one way could move to the appropriate state, and the others to another state.
saying, "love it or leave it" in regards to the entire country is silly when we could simply have more variation domestically. (and, in fact, should by the original intent)

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:19:07 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on February 26, 2010, 08:17:20 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

And I believe that society should offer help to its weakest members, but that a strong society shouldn't force anything on any of its members.

Rule by force is slavery.

What does this mean in a practical application? It sounds like a meaningless slogan.

Example 1: "Hi Nigel, I will be protecting your business from now on. You owe me 25% of your profits weekly or something bad might happen to your studio"

Example 2: "Hi citizen Nigel, the government will be protecting your business from now on. You owe Uncle Sam a 25% tax on your profits or we will seize your assets"

What is the practical difference between these two examples?

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:30:15 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 08:22:21 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

That's what I meant when I said let the "Go Galt". If they don't want to pay taxes then they must pay an annual fee to use any service, including sidewalks and roads... or if they don't want to pay such fees they can go off on their own and take care of themselves... and if their house burns down and they die of exposure, well that's the result of their own choices and decisions, I have no problem with it.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:32:55 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:27:59 PM
What happens when people start abusing the system? 

Do you know how many looney hypochondriacs I know who are at the doctor three or four times a month, because the DON'T have to pay for it?

I bet there are fewer people doing this every year (and if there's nothing wrong with them, a mere office visit isn't very expensive) than there are people who die of conditions that would have been treatable had they been insured.

Ok, granted, but what if they do? 

Since hypochondriacs got brought up, I have a point to put in. They do not, as far as I know (my grandmother is one, certifiably), knowingly ABUSE the health care system because they're insured. No. They go to see a doctor (or they go to the ER) because they think there is something wrong with them. Yes.

/.02

Quote from: Mistress Freeky on February 26, 2010, 08:39:01 PM
Since hypochondriacs got brought up, I have a point to put in. They do not, as far as I know (my grandmother is one, certifiably), knowingly ABUSE the health care system because they're insured. No. They go to see a doctor (or they go to the ER) because they think there is something wrong with them. Yes.

/.02

I agree, but that still costs money and wastes the time of doctors.

So, are we discussing what would make a perfect system, or just a better one?


Because a better system would allow hypochondriacs to see a doctor for a slight bump in taxes in order not to let anyone die just because they can't afford it.

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:39:44 PM

Quote from: Mistress Freeky on February 26, 2010, 08:39:01 PM
Since hypochondriacs got brought up, I have a point to put in. They do not, as far as I know (my grandmother is one, certifiably), knowingly ABUSE the health care system because they're insured. No. They go to see a doctor (or they go to the ER) because they think there is something wrong with them. Yes.

/.02

I agree, but that still costs money and wastes the time of doctors.

and avoiding the expense of insured office visits from hypochondriacs is TOTALLY worth not providing basic universal healthcare to people who would otherwise die a horrible death from a treatable condition.

Yeah, that.

Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument, so I don't see any point in my trying to debate this any longer.

LMNO, in future I would suggest not asking the question if you don't want actual answers you don't want to hear.

I am leaving work for the day, so I won't be able to read any more responses or respond myself... I hope none of you consider me a monster, though I suspect a large portion of you do.

i still love you Hoops :)
you're welcome at my fortified bunker any time.
viva la resistance!

Hoops, there's a difference between listing the arguments against universal health care (as the original question asked) and appearing to actually advocate one of those arguments, especially one as inane as you have chosen. Especially coming from a Canadian (fairly or not), it appears to fall into the "fuck you, I got mine" line of thought.

Mind you, your playing of devil's advocate on this issue, whether heartfelt or not, does nothing to lower my opinion of you.

Yeah, I debated long and hard about saying anything at all since I'm a Canuck... I can imagine what it sounds like.

I tried to separate my views from the argument I was presenting a page back or so, but maybe that just made it worse.  Let me say again, I think there are issues with universal healthcare, but I also think its the most realistic solution.  I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it. 

are there any countries that have private health care where the corporations do not have undue influence in the governmental regulation?
i would be interested to see how that situation works out...

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 09:11:08 PM
Yeah, I debated long and hard about saying anything at all since I'm a Canuck... I can imagine what it sounds like.

I tried to separate my views from the argument I was presenting a page back or so, but maybe that just made it worse.  Let me say again, I think there are issues with universal healthcare, but I also think its the most realistic solution.  I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it. 

I agree 100%... except I would make one modification:

I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it, unless they choose to.

I think that choosing to unnecessarily die a horrible and painful death from a treatable condition would be indicative of a compromised mental state, so I'm not sure I agree with your modification.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on February 26, 2010, 09:24:03 PM
I think that choosing to unnecessarily die a horrible and painful death from a treatable condition would be indicative of a compromised mental state, so I'm not sure I agree with your modification.

i think it's pretty clear that he meant 'unless they choose not to participate in a system that could prevent it given the opportunity.'
it is a valid modification.

Oh. If it had been pretty clear, I would have gotten it, right?

I'm not sure how someone could choose to be unable to pay for treatment. Maybe Rat needs to re-word his post.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 25, 2010, 08:51:31 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 25, 2010, 08:42:31 PM
Yeah.

I wasn't really surprised at the way this all went down, but the complete embrace of a compassionless stance really got to me.  I mean, even monkeys take care of their tribe.

If the dems couldn't pull it off with a supermajority, and they couldn't, then the situation is hopeless.  What's going to happen is that whatever bill finally passes will be a giveaway to health insurance companies, big pharma, or both.

What's really funny about this is that I know a conservatard who makes about $29K/year, who was ranting about how he didn't want to pay for all of this (Yeah, I know, he wouldn't pay a dime in any case, but that's not what Rush told him.).  He was diagnosed with lung cancer last month, and has no health insurance.  He has since learned that the E-room only has to stabilize you, and that no hospital will treat him, because he can't pay and has no assets of sufficient value.

I'd like to feel bad for the guy, I really would...But he was both stupid enough to expound against his own self interest - and heartless enough to condemn poor people to a needless death - so I really can't work up much sympathy for him, despite his rather gruesome upcoming death.  He has finally seen that there's nothing so horrible as drowning because you can't afford the fee for the lifeguard throwing you a life preserver.

He still listens to Rush Limbaugh, incidentally.  People are stupid beyond any hope whatsoever.

How much health care would he receive if he were in prison?

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:30:15 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 08:22:21 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

Or Waco. :horrormirth:  Places like that have a horrible history of human rights violations.

Quote from: Jason Wabash on February 27, 2010, 03:48:50 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:30:15 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 08:22:21 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

Or Waco. :horrormirth:  Places like that have a horrible history of human rights violations.

Yep. :)

Another good reason to get them away from people who actually care about each other and the betterment of society.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on February 26, 2010, 09:31:19 PM
Oh. If it had been pretty clear, I would have gotten it, right?

I'm not sure how someone could choose to be unable to pay for treatment. Maybe Rat needs to re-word his post.

ah.  i thought you were being deliberately obtuse.  (god knows, i'm guilty of doing that from time to time...)
Since you read it as someone literally choosing to not have the personal means to pay for medical treatment themselves, it evidently could use clarification.  i just thought it seems readily apparent that he meant someone might choose not to insure themselves if the opportunity is available....
sorry for sounding like a bitch about it :oops:

Cf. what I said in the libertarian thread about MLS. It applies here as well.

There are several reasons that Rome fell, the biggest being the amount of internal cheating and "everyone for themselves" and "fuck you I got mine".

I see the US going the same way if something doesn't change. The European Union, which is far more aligned with the historical perspective of humans, will eventually overtake us.

And I think that's a good thing.

Quote from: Kai on February 27, 2010, 06:00:17 PM
Cf. what I said in the libertarian thread about MLS. It applies here as well.

There are several reasons that Rome fell, the biggest being the amount of internal cheating and "everyone for themselves" and "fuck you I got mine".

I see the US going the same way if something doesn't change. The European Union, which is far more aligned with the historical perspective of humans, will eventually overtake us.

And I think that's a good thing.

I totally agree with you that we are going the same way as Rome, from what i've seen/read....  I am not so certain that the EU, from what i have read is going to fare significantly better....

when you say 'historical perspective', are you talking about the hunter gatherer groups that you refer to in the other post?  because i don't think that applies to larger scale societies.  all the larger societies in history that i know of have a much greater degree of 'fuck you, i got mine' than that...

Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 26, 2010, 08:11:30 PM
I've thought about that model before, of services only provided to those that choose to pay taxes.

The problem is that the tiny number of people who have 95% of the wealth are going to be the ones who don't want to pay taxes in exchange for services.

They wont have that money long with no police protecting it and no access to the public roadways.

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 02:24:02 PM
I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

People would pour in from neighboring states to free healthcare land when they got injured.

Quote from: Jason Wabash on February 26, 2010, 06:21:50 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 05:14:31 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 05:08:28 PM
It has been expanded recently to cover everyone in the state who is under the age of 18, regardless of their family income level, and I anticipate that the income maximum to qualify will eventually be raised.

I honestly don't know why people don't want socialized medicine, instead of the raping insurance wolves that profit off illness.

That sounds fantastic.  if the several states are able to successfully implement social medicine according to the desires of their citizens, then more people would get what they want, there would be less people forced to do what they don't want, and there would be competition between the socialized medicine structures used, that would work to refine them further.
why isn't this possibility being enacted by those that support socialized medicine?
and why isn't it being raised as an argument against a federal system by those opposed?

One of the major draw backs to doing it at the local level instead of federal is that the states that need it the most already don't have enough money. Some places in the Deep South have health care systems that are barely better than third world countries and don't have enough taxes coming in to cover everyone who needs it. A federal system would make it easy to pool resources and get help to where it is needed the most. Yes, that would "redistribute the wealth" from rich Blue states to poor Red states. That seems to be the only solution at this point though.

But the red states are the ones that don't want federal health care.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:30:15 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 08:22:21 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

Could just have park rangers occasionally do an ID check.  Any Free Citizens who were found in the park without having purchased a pass would be fined.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 27, 2010, 07:55:15 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 02:24:02 PM
I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

People would pour in from neighboring states to free healthcare land when they got injured.

I haven't seen that effect here. Relocating is expensive and difficult; moreso when you're poor and sick.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 27, 2010, 08:07:01 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:30:15 PM

Quote from: LMNO on February 26, 2010, 08:22:21 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 26, 2010, 08:15:56 PM
Also, I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards. I believe that a society is only as strong as its ability to provide for its weakest members.

While I don't think anyone's kids should die in the street because their parents are fucktards, I don't think they should die in the street because their neighbors are fucktards, either.

I'm getting idealistic again, aren't I?

I happen to agree with this idealism.

I also think that anyone who wants to drop out of society should be able to go Kaczynski... take off somewhere and fend for themselves. Maybe they could even build cities of their own through voluntary funding and see how that works for them. For the rest of us, I think that the democratic system is, while not working perfectly, also not such a bad system, if we could get the corporate corruption out of it.

I honestly don't think that "Taxpayers" and "Free Citizens" could functionally live side-by-side, because the "Free Citizens" would still be walking on our sidewalks under our streetlights and reaping other benefits of our taxes. Gating off public parks and making "Free Citizens" pay to enter? That's seriously an incredibly stupid and completely unfeasible idea. How do you enforce it? Public employees at the park entrances? ID chips in every child? Who's going to pay to gate off national parks so "Free Citizens" can't get in without paying? Oh, that's right... taxpayers. Here's a reality check; it would probably cost more to put a chain-link fence around all the public land in the country than it would to provide healthcare for everyone.

Send 'em off on their own to build their own society, like the Mormons.

Could just have park rangers occasionally do an ID check.  Any Free Citizens who were found in the park without having purchased a pass would be fined.

:lulz: No, really. You have to be kidding me.

There are a tiny number of park rangers (paid for by who, again?) compared to the vast amount of public land, and "Free Citizens" would just take their chances since the odds are pretty fucking good.

Do you know how many rangers we have patrolling the Oregon Coastline, for example? This is with everyone paying. Make taxes voluntary and that guy can kiss his job goodbye.

And just by going outside and walking on OUR clean sidewalks under OUR streetlights, breathing relatively smog-free air paid for through OUR clean energy initiatives, they are receiving benefits WE paid for without any way of enforcing that they pay their share.

No, the only solution would be to give "Free Citizens" their own state and let them run it into the ground.

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:58:31 PM
Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

Wow, it just occurred to me that since the election system is paid for with tax money, under the ludricrous system in discussion, "Free Citizens" would have to pay a fee to be allowed to vote.

  :lulz:

I really, really want someone to try this experiment now. It'd only be funny for a little while, unfortunately.

Quote from: Ratatosk on February 26, 2010, 09:18:59 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 09:11:08 PM
Yeah, I debated long and hard about saying anything at all since I'm a Canuck... I can imagine what it sounds like.

I tried to separate my views from the argument I was presenting a page back or so, but maybe that just made it worse.  Let me say again, I think there are issues with universal healthcare, but I also think its the most realistic solution.  I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it. 

I agree 100%... except I would make one modification:

I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it, unless they choose to.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:51:35 PM
Wow, it just occurred to me that since the election system is paid for with tax money, under the ludricrous system in discussion, "Free Citizens" would have to pay a fee to be allowed to vote.

  :lulz:

I really, really want someone to try this experiment now. It'd only be funny for a little while, unfortunately.

:lulz:

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 08:51:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:58:31 PM
Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

What with the roughly 45,000 preventable uninsured deaths per year, it kind of seems like the main argument.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:57:04 PM

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 08:51:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:58:31 PM
Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

What with the roughly 45,000 preventable uninsured deaths per year, it kind of seems like the main argument.

According to the arguments of the local conservatives, 911 would have to happen 15 more times before it would be significant.

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:02:26 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:57:04 PM

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 08:51:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:58:31 PM
Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

What with the roughly 45,000 preventable uninsured deaths per year, it kind of seems like the main argument.

According to the arguments of the local conservatives, 911 would have to happen 15 more times before it would be significant.

Yeah, but fuck consistency when it interferes with their notions of what's best for themselves.  :lulz:

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 09:04:22 PM

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:02:26 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:57:04 PM

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 08:51:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:58:31 PM
Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

What with the roughly 45,000 preventable uninsured deaths per year, it kind of seems like the main argument.

According to the arguments of the local conservatives, 911 would have to happen 15 more times before it would be significant.

Yeah, but fuck consistency when it interferes with their notions of what's best for themselves.  :lulz:

What makes me laugh is that half of them don't have health insurance, and argue against national health care.  That level of stupidity is frustrating.

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:07:51 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 09:04:22 PM

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:02:26 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:57:04 PM

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 08:51:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:58:31 PM
Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

What with the roughly 45,000 preventable uninsured deaths per year, it kind of seems like the main argument.

According to the arguments of the local conservatives, 911 would have to happen 15 more times before it would be significant.

Yeah, but fuck consistency when it interferes with their notions of what's best for themselves.  :lulz:

What makes me laugh is that half of them don't have health insurance, and argue against national health care.  That level of stupidity is frustrating.

Well that's because if it wasn't for the damn liberals taking their tax money, they'd be rich! And Dr. visits would only cost $5! (Meanwhile disregarding that they don't earn enough to pay taxes in the first place.)

I love listening to windbags go off on "MY TAX DOLLARS" when I know they don't pay any and are on food stamps (But that's not welfare, that's just them getting through a rough patch.)

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 09:30:26 PM

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:07:51 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 09:04:22 PM

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:02:26 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:57:04 PM

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 08:51:02 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 08:58:31 PM
Well clearly I can't ask a question without getting the "horrible death" argument,

It is a perfectly good argument.

What with the roughly 45,000 preventable uninsured deaths per year, it kind of seems like the main argument.

According to the arguments of the local conservatives, 911 would have to happen 15 more times before it would be significant.

Yeah, but fuck consistency when it interferes with their notions of what's best for themselves.  :lulz:

What makes me laugh is that half of them don't have health insurance, and argue against national health care.  That level of stupidity is frustrating.

Well that's because if it wasn't for the damn liberals taking their tax money, they'd be rich! And Dr. visits would only cost $5! (Meanwhile disregarding that they don't earn enough to pay taxes in the first place.)

I love listening to windbags go off on "MY TAX DOLLARS" when I know they don't pay any and are on food stamps (But that's not welfare, that's just them getting through a rough patch.)

Yes, Roger will rant about these folks for days, if you let him.  It's starting to rub off on me.  I wasn't paying attention to it before.  I'm not sure I want to thank him, if you get me.

Quote from: Maria on February 27, 2010, 09:37:19 PM
Yes, Roger will rant about these folks for days, if you let him.  It's starting to rub off on me.  I wasn't paying attention to it before.  I'm not sure I want to thank him, if you get me.

Yeah, totally. It's one of those "I can't un-know!" things.  :horrormirth:

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:15:32 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 27, 2010, 07:55:15 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 02:24:02 PM
I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

People would pour in from neighboring states to free healthcare land when they got injured.

I haven't seen that effect here. Relocating is expensive and difficult; moreso when you're poor and sick.

this isn't quite the same thing, but if I or ECHGF has to go to the ER for anything not immediately life-threatening, we go across the river to Vancouver because by law in WA unpaid medical bills cannot go on your credit report and any unpaid debts have a statute of limitations of 7 years from the date of last contact from the creditor. IOW, if you can duck them for 7 years, the debt gets wiped clean with no impact on your credit at all.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on February 27, 2010, 11:23:24 PM

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on February 27, 2010, 08:15:32 PM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 27, 2010, 07:55:15 PM

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 02:24:02 PM
I'm sure there is a reason that govt. health care would work only at the national level, and not at the state level?

People would pour in from neighboring states to free healthcare land when they got injured.

I haven't seen that effect here. Relocating is expensive and difficult; moreso when you're poor and sick.

this isn't quite the same thing, but if I or ECHGF has to go to the ER for anything not immediately life-threatening, we go across the river to Vancouver because by law in WA unpaid medical bills cannot go on your credit report and any unpaid debts have a statute of limitations of 7 years from the date of last contact from the creditor. IOW, if you can duck them for 7 years, the debt gets wiped clean with no impact on your credit at all.

Lucky bastard.  :)

Quote from: Ratatosk on February 26, 2010, 09:18:59 PM

Quote from: Hoopla on February 26, 2010, 09:11:08 PMI don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it. 

I agree 100%... except I would make one modification:

I don't want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it, unless they choose to.

Well I think that's rather strange, but whatever you like.

However, some of us (I would even like to think, a lot of us), just don;t want anyone dying a horrible painful death because they can't pay for it, regardless whether they "choose" to or not. Because guess what? I believe that there are zillions of people that are terribly stupid. And they will choose, and no, I'd prefer them to be able to afford healthcare instead of dying or suffering. Because it's not just about dying a horrible death, healthcare is about not suffering in general and being healthy in general.

Now what?

Regarding taxation=theft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLxYNM1ziFI

Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 01:30:04 AM
Regarding taxation=theft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLxYNM1ziFI

Fatcats swindling tax money into their bank accounts is theft, not taxation itself.

Do try again.

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on February 28, 2010, 05:54:26 AM

Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 01:30:04 AM
Regarding taxation=theft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLxYNM1ziFI

Fatcats swindling tax money into their bank accounts is theft, not taxation itself.

Do try again.

Taxation is lawful, thus not theft.

Relevant:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002260026?lid=1099780 (http://mediamatters.org/research/201002260026?lid=1099780)

QuoteLIMBAUGH: You know I'm getting so many people -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big. I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?

Limbaugh previously told a caller who could not afford the $6,000 it would cost to treat a broken wrist that he "shouldn't have broken [his] wrist."

Beck mocks Slaughter's story: "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth."

:weary:

The problem with this outright callousness is that none of his fans will care unless something happens to them, personally.

It's this kind of conversation that made me miss this place. :)

Quote from: Iptuous on February 26, 2010, 08:34:21 PM
Nigel,
that's why i think everything that can possibly be done at the state level should be left to the states,  there would be competition of systems, and those that wish to be governed one way could move to the appropriate state, and the others to another state.
saying, "love it or leave it" in regards to the entire country is silly when we could simply have more variation domestically. (and, in fact, should by the original intent)

California is positively swimming in debt. If your system were in place and I were on public insurance, I'd be fucked until things were ok again because my condition is expensive to treat and I probably wouldn't be all that high on the to-treat list anyway.

A national system would be exclusive of the states (presumably) so people like me with expensive, but not life threatening, conditions would still be able to get treatment. And actually, doing that might help cut down on the homelessness rate. That usually caused by mental illnesses, right? Mental illnesses would be treated as soon as they were caught and perhaps there would be fewer homeless.

Quote from: Demon Sheep on March 01, 2010, 01:16:49 AM
It's this kind of conversation that made me miss this place. :)

Guido?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 01:47:09 AM

Quote from: Demon Sheep on March 01, 2010, 01:16:49 AM
It's this kind of conversation that made me miss this place. :)

Guido?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just saying I haven't seen many forums with conversations quite like this and I missed it when I left. That's all.

Quote from: Demon Sheep on March 01, 2010, 02:10:14 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 01, 2010, 01:47:09 AM

Quote from: Demon Sheep on March 01, 2010, 01:16:49 AM
It's this kind of conversation that made me miss this place. :)

Guido?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm just saying I haven't seen many forums with conversations quite like this and I missed it when I left. That's all.

Judge Crater?

Even more incentive to pass some sort of healthcare bill:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html)

Quote from: Remington on March 09, 2010, 08:30:29 PM
Even more incentive to pass some sort of healthcare bill:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html)

Hells yes.  Go Rushbo gtfo!

Quote from: Jenne on March 09, 2010, 09:51:49 PM

Quote from: Remington on March 09, 2010, 08:30:29 PM
Even more incentive to pass some sort of healthcare bill:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html)

Hells yes.  Go Rushbo gtfo!

Does Costa Rica have universal health care, by any chance?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2010, 09:56:40 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 09, 2010, 09:51:49 PM

Quote from: Remington on March 09, 2010, 08:30:29 PM
Even more incentive to pass some sort of healthcare bill:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html)

Hells yes.  Go Rushbo gtfo!

Does Costa Rica have universal health care, by any chance?

Have no idea...would be worth looking into, though.  :lulz:

Quote from: Jenne on March 09, 2010, 10:16:15 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2010, 09:56:40 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 09, 2010, 09:51:49 PM

Quote from: Remington on March 09, 2010, 08:30:29 PM
Even more incentive to pass some sort of healthcare bill:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/limbaugh-ill-leave-us-if_n_491536.html)

Hells yes.  Go Rushbo gtfo!

Does Costa Rica have universal health care, by any chance?

Have no idea...would be worth looking into, though.  :lulz:

they do have socialised healthcare from what I know   :D

...:lulz: that's fuckin' hilarious if that's true...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/markos-moulitsas-to-kucin_n_492675.html

This is amusing.  Daily Kos' founder is threatening a primary challenge against Kucinich if he doesn't vote for healthcare "reform".  A civil war on the left of the party would no doubt please the White House and the Centrists in Congress and besides, healthcare "reform" currently looks to be a terrible proposition (I think affordable healthcare is good, but giveaways to the insurance companies who helped bankroll the Democrats in 06 and Obama in 08, backed up with threats of fines, during an economic recession where one of the key problems is job loss, to be a rather poor way of going about it, if not entirely counterproductive).

Anyway, look out for the up and coming civil war.  It's been threatening to break out for a while now, between pro-Obama and anti-Obama progressive Democrat factions.  This might just help it spill over.

How the hell did the conservatives become so good at shaping the argument, while liberals have their thumbs in their asses?

The right wing has basically taken the public opinion that "the Dem's bill sucks because it doesn't actually reform health care" and turned it into "no one in the US wants to reform health care."

The popularity of the bill hasn't dropped because people like the system as it currently is, it's dropped because, holy shit, when did this turn from a bill about health care to a bill about insurance companies?

But the libs can't seem to grasp the ability to control the terms of the debate, and end up defending positions just as ridiculous as the cons.

It always helps to remember the Dems are essentially two parties: the left-leaning Dems ("progressives") and the centrist Dems ("blue dogs") and each have their own constituencies and backers to pander to.  They will never get on message or have the propaganda discipline of the GOP for precisely this reason.  And since they are always aiming for different goals, they will by default put the GOP in the Kingmaker position, even though they were soundly thrashed in the elections.

Thus, Democrats of all stripes are pwnt.

I heard Obama talking about that a while back. Somebody had asked him why the Dem majority couldn't get anything done, and he basically said just that. The Conservatives are like one big united family. They have their differences, but they support each other. Whereas the dem camp is like a big family that fights all the time. There's a whole spectrum of ideas under the "democrat" heading, and not all of them work together.

nevbermind all of that, I'd be SO FUCKING STOKED if someone put that turd burglar Kucinich out of a job (and out of the public eye forever).

His smoking hot wife can stay in the public spotlight, however.

Meh, she's attractive, but she's nothing special. I think she just looks hotter because you almost always only see her next to him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448&feature=player_embedded)

^^ Major lulz ^^

"I don't have all the answers, I just know government is NOT the answer! Give it to some private company so they can make a profit off of it."

I  :lulz: and then  :horrormirth:

SOCIALISM IN DA HOOOOOOOOUSE!

:banana:

AMERICA ROONT


I gotta get myself to GLP and Rapture Ready.

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on February 28, 2010, 05:54:26 AM

Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 01:30:04 AM
Regarding taxation=theft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLxYNM1ziFI

Fatcats swindling tax money into their bank accounts is theft, not taxation itself.

Do try again.

Oh i'm sorry.
When i said theft i meant the removal of (objects of) value by force or the threat of force.
Nothing like taxation, no sir.
If you dont pay taxes the govt doesn't use violence or the threat of violence against you.
They just pat you on the head and give you a cookie.

Quote from: Regret on March 22, 2010, 11:16:40 AM

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on February 28, 2010, 05:54:26 AM

Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 01:30:04 AM
Regarding taxation=theft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLxYNM1ziFI

Fatcats swindling tax money into their bank accounts is theft, not taxation itself.

Do try again.

Oh i'm sorry.
When i said theft i meant the removal of (objects of) value by force or the threat of force.
Nothing like taxation, no sir.
If you dont pay taxes the govt doesn't use violence or the threat of violence against you.
They just pat you on the head and give you a cookie.

No one intends theft to mean taking something by force and leaving behind a massive infrastructure for your food, electricity, sewage, water to all run smoothly on.

Thieves don't conspire to build bridges, teach children, and put out fires for the massive numbers of people they stole from. That's called taxation.

Thieves bust in while you're not there, jack your electronics and skip town.

With taxes you get things in return, like roads and tons of shit you apparently take for granted.

OH LOOK! ANOTHER FREEWAY JUST FELL OUT OF MY ASS.

It's true! Taxes are not theft, they are an aspect of slavery.

Good slave owners provide housing and food and even medical care.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 01:36:36 PM
It's true! Taxes are not theft, they are an aspect of slavery.

Good slave owners provide housing and food and even medical care.

If you believe that The Machine^TM always appears to be heartless then you are missing some of its best performances . . .

Quote from: MMIX on March 22, 2010, 01:45:44 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 01:36:36 PM
It's true! Taxes are not theft, they are an aspect of slavery.

Good slave owners provide housing and food and even medical care.

If you believe that The Machine^TM always appears to be heartless then you are missing some of its best performances . . .

I dunno about Machines, but government does seem to play best when its playing heartstrings.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 01:36:36 PM
It's true! Taxes are not theft, they are an aspect of slavery.

BECAUSE THE BILLS DON'T HAVE TO BE PAID.

ALL THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS FREE.

Quote from: Regret on March 22, 2010, 11:16:40 AM

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on February 28, 2010, 05:54:26 AM

Quote from: Regret on February 28, 2010, 01:30:04 AM
Regarding taxation=theft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLxYNM1ziFI

Fatcats swindling tax money into their bank accounts is theft, not taxation itself.

Do try again.

Oh i'm sorry.
When i said theft i meant the removal of (objects of) value by force or the threat of force.
Nothing like taxation, no sir.
If you dont pay taxes the govt doesn't use violence or the threat of violence against you.
They just pat you on the head and give you a cookie.

We tried voluntary taxation.  It worked so well we had to write a second constitution.

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on March 22, 2010, 01:19:10 PM

No one intends theft to mean taking something by force and leaving behind a massive infrastructure for your food, electricity, sewage, water to all run smoothly on.

No one?
because it sure seems that he does.  and i do too.  and quite a few other people.
some people see taxation as a subset of theft.  you don't.

those fellas that wash your windshield with a dirty rag when you're at a stop light, and then stick out their hand for change?  they're annoying.  now if they threaten violence against you if you don't pony up some change (that they get to determine), you're going to tell me that's not theft?
If you think that's an absurd comparison, it can only be because you see personal utility in the things the govt. provides for your taxes, vs. a windshield 'washing'.    
So it sounds like what you're saying is that as long as it can be established that the personal utility to the individual is fair compensation for the money demanded, then it's not theft?
I'm sure you have a nice clean way of ensuring that, right? :wink:

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 02:09:19 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 01:36:36 PM
It's true! Taxes are not theft, they are an aspect of slavery.

BECAUSE THE BILLS DON'T HAVE TO BE PAID.

ALL THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS FREE.

I don't disagree that taxes can bring about beneficial infrastructure and government programs.

But we could use that line of reasoning to support sweatshops... after all those Nike's don't make themselves...

If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say... if the option is "Our Way or Prison/Death/Garnished wages" it is a form of slavery.

In the south, before the civil war many slave owners argued that THE FIELDS HAVE TO BE PICKED, OR YOUR SHIRTS WILL BE WAYYYY TOOOOO EXPENSIVE!!! OMGZ!!!!

Doesn't change the fact that it was slavery... even for those slaves that were well cared for, given decent homes and some semblance of a life.

Big difference between the ends and the means, Dok.

you know, you see this and similar arguments all the time, but it always results in the one side shouting, 'it's slavery/theft' and the other shouting, 'it's for the greater good'.  Nobody ever says what is the most apparent conclusion:  some degree of slavery/theft is necessary for the greater good.

i see the same thing in other contentious political debates...

Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2010, 02:35:03 PM
you know, you see this and similar arguments all the time, but it always results in the one side shouting, 'it's slavery/theft' and the other shouting, 'it's for the greater good'.  Nobody ever says what is the most apparent conclusion:  some degree of slavery/theft is necessary for the greater good.

i see the same thing in other contentious political debates...

(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/greater-good-power-cover.jpg)

always debatable . . .

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

I'm not arguing that its not legal... only that its a form of slavery, even if its Constitutionally authorized slavery

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

i guess...
depends on who you ask, doesn't it?
has general welfare ever been fully defined?
seriously. when this shit finally keels over and we have to do it all over again, i hope we have some engineering/software type peoples to keep in check the romantic/poetic vagaries that are some of the big bugaboos in our current constitution...

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

I'm not arguing that its not legal... only that its a form of slavery, even if its Constitutionally authorized slavery

Hyperbolic nonsense.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

I'm not arguing that its not legal... only that its a form of slavery, even if its Constitutionally authorized slavery

Okay, yeah, I can see that.  You're not free to chose your job, where you live, whether or not you can have kids, whether or not you can leave the situation, or anything.  Right?

It's just like slavery.  No, really.

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 03:47:24 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

I'm not arguing that its not legal... only that its a form of slavery, even if its Constitutionally authorized slavery

Hyperbolic nonsense.

If one person forces another person to work, or takes the output of that work without permission, or consent based solely upon force... that is slavery. It doesn't matter if its one person over one person or 535 persons over millions of people.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:52:18 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

I'm not arguing that its not legal... only that its a form of slavery, even if its Constitutionally authorized slavery

Okay, yeah, I can see that.  You're not free to chose your job, where you live, whether or not you can have kids, whether or not you can leave the situation, or anything.  Right?

It's just like slavery.  No, really.

Liberal slavery is still slavery Dok.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 03:53:29 PM
If one person forces another person to work, or takes the output of that work without permission, or consent based solely upon force... that is slavery.

Who is forcing you to work?

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 03:53:29 PM
Liberal slavery is still slavery Dok.

Balls.  Are you claiming that you are forced to stay within the boundaries of the US system?  You are, for example, not permitted to emmigrate elsewhere?

Because we all knew the slaves in America were allowed to get up and leave the Southern states, or vote for a different system.

Right?

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 03:47:24 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

I'm not arguing that its not legal... only that its a form of slavery, even if its Constitutionally authorized slavery

Hyperbolic nonsense.

Naw.  My company has a policy I don't like.  ZOMG SLAVERY.

Paying taxes is slavery in the same way bankers are the Jews for Obama's ovens.

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 04:00:48 PM
Paying taxes is slavery in the same way bankers are the Jews for Obama's ovens.

By the standard set by the libertarian element, everyone in the world is a slave, except for people living in Somalia or parts of Liberia.

And now who's playing with hyperbole? Jews in ovens... really?

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 04:11:02 PM
And now who's playing with hyperbole? Jews in ovens... really?

Cain was, I believe, paraphrasing your pals in the teabag movement.

The fact remains:  if you can leave the situation, it isn't slavery.

I LIKE TAXES AND I LIKE SOCIALISM AND I LIKE HEALTH CARE. RAH!

Quote from: Fredamir Putin on March 22, 2010, 04:16:53 PM
I LIKE TAXES AND I LIKE SOCIALISM AND I LIKE HEALTH CARE. RAH!

I grew up in Canada, and I was pretty fond of the health care system there.

Yeah, I was saying it was pretty much the same kind of hyperbole.

Because....well, it is.  I mean, if you want to redefine freedom as the privilege of not contributing to the social good, then knock yourself out.  I'll be over here, laughing.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

I'm not arguing that its not legal... only that its a form of slavery, even if its Constitutionally authorized slavery

:nigel:

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 03:45:41 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 02:22:49 PM
If its compulsory, if the individual doesn't have a direct say...

Well, yeah.  You live in a representational republic, not a direct democracy.

Taxes are constitutional.  If you aren't wild about that, then start a drive to amend the constitution.

I'm not arguing that its not legal... only that its a form of slavery, even if its Constitutionally authorized slavery

It is only "slavery" in the same sense as "wage slavery" is "slavery; you are not "owned" by the Government - you might want to argue that you are in some occult way "owned" by the Corporations - though I suspect that wouldn't jive too well with what I assume your political stance to be . . .

i don't understand the commotion.

Rat clearly indicated that taxation can bring about social benefits, and hasn't in the context of this conversation argued against them.  he simply said that taxation is a form of involuntary servitude, i.e. slavery.  that makes sense to me?

why the opposition to calling a spade a spade?  if you want to have people perform labor, the product of which is then confiscated for the greater good, can't we call it what it is, at least?

my take is that such blatant honesty is simply not good for furtherance of the goal, and thus the vitriol.

It sounds to me like it's an exchange of goods and services.

If you want to live in the US, and have access to the stuff that US citizens get (roads, national/domestic security, (some) education, etc etc), then you have to give the gvt some of the money you make.



I'm not saying it's an equal exchange, but...

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 04:23:19 PM
Yeah, I was saying it was pretty much the same kind of hyperbole.

Because....well, it is.  I mean, if you want to redefine freedom as the privilege of not contributing to the social good, then knock yourself out.  I'll be over here, laughing.

This thread, of course, is now about Libertarianism and not health care.

Amazing.

Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 04:38:53 PM
It sounds to me like it's an exchange of goods and services.

If you want to live in the US, and have access to the stuff that US citizens get (roads, national/domestic security, (some) education, etc etc), then you have to give the gvt some of the money you make.



I'm not saying it's an equal exchange, but...

No, LMNO, it's just as bad as slavery in the 1850s.  Because, you know, the slaves back then could up and leave.

MMIX,

Then you misunderstand my political stance. The corporations are worse than the government generally speaking. Oddly enough, I hope that the health care bill becomes law, now that its passed. I have no illusions that we will ever vote in someone who will remove taxes and replace it with some better solution. Personally, I find the idea that some group of people have the right to tell me what to do is silly. However, in this world of talking monkeys, the tribal hierarchy is not about to disappear. So if the big monkeys in Washington are going to take our money, I think health care is a great place for that money to go. In fact, the health care issue is one of the biggest reasons I voted for Obama. (The fact that I would die before helping Sarah Palin get anywhere near the White House was a close second).

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 04:41:27 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 04:23:19 PM
Yeah, I was saying it was pretty much the same kind of hyperbole.

Because....well, it is.  I mean, if you want to redefine freedom as the privilege of not contributing to the social good, then knock yourself out.  I'll be over here, laughing.

This thread, of course, is now about Libertarianism and not health care.

Amazing.

Look, the primary argument against this federal health care issue is that it is out of the scope for them to deal with.  that's got libertarian written all over.  how would you expect the topic to be debated?!

Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2010, 04:38:30 PM
i don't understand the commotion.

Rat clearly indicated that taxation can bring about social benefits, and hasn't in the context of this conversation argued against them.  he simply said that taxation is a form of involuntary servitude, i.e. slavery.  that makes sense to me?

why the opposition to calling a spade a spade?  if you want to have people perform labor, the product of which is then confiscated for the greater good, can't we call it what it is, at least?

my take is that such blatant honesty is simply not good for furtherance of the goal, and thus the vitriol.

*insert something about religious debate here*

Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2010, 04:38:30 PM
i don't understand the commotion.

Rat clearly indicated that taxation can bring about social benefits, and hasn't in the context of this conversation argued against them.  he simply said that taxation is a form of involuntary servitude, i.e. slavery.  that makes sense to me?

why the opposition to calling a spade a spade?  if you want to have people perform labor, the product of which is then confiscated for the greater good, can't we call it what it is, at least?

my take is that such blatant honesty is simply not good for furtherance of the goal, and thus the vitriol.

having to involuntarily give the government some of your income (although it's not REALLY involuntary, since you can leave anytime) is hardly "slavery". It would be slavery if the government told you what you had to do, how long you had to do it, and you had better produce THIS much or you're going to get whipped/beaten/killed.

Srsly, comparing taxation to slavery is possibly even more retarded than the entire internet's worth of frivolous Hitler comparisons.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 04:42:34 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 04:38:53 PM
It sounds to me like it's an exchange of goods and services.

If you want to live in the US, and have access to the stuff that US citizens get (roads, national/domestic security, (some) education, etc etc), then you have to give the gvt some of the money you make.



I'm not saying it's an equal exchange, but...

No, LMNO, it's just as bad as slavery in the 1850s.  Because, you know, the slaves back then could up and leave.

Because, thats exactly what was claimed....  :roll:

So Ipt, explain to me how an exchange of goods and services is a form of slavery, plz.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 04:41:27 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 04:23:19 PM
Yeah, I was saying it was pretty much the same kind of hyperbole.

Because....well, it is.  I mean, if you want to redefine freedom as the privilege of not contributing to the social good, then knock yourself out.  I'll be over here, laughing.

This thread, of course, is now about Libertarianism and not health care.

Amazing.

Yeah, don't even get me started on that.  Like McCain said, "the American people are very angry".

Probably not at the change of topic in this thread, but you can never tell.

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 04:50:32 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 04:41:27 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 04:23:19 PM
Yeah, I was saying it was pretty much the same kind of hyperbole.

Because....well, it is.  I mean, if you want to redefine freedom as the privilege of not contributing to the social good, then knock yourself out.  I'll be over here, laughing.

This thread, of course, is now about Libertarianism and not health care.

Amazing.

Yeah, don't even get me started on that.  Like McCain said, "the American people are very angry".

Probably not at the change of topic in this thread, but you can never tell.

IMA BE RICH ONE DAY, AND I DON'T WANT YOU HIPPIES FUCKING IT UP FOR ME.

Childish, irresponsible resentment of government services is the best path to political freedom!

Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 04:50:23 PM
So Ipt, explain to me how an exchange of goods and services is a form of slavery, plz.

well.... i gave this silly analogy to net in regards to taxation being theft... perhaps that will suffice.

Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2010, 02:18:38 PM
those fellas that wash your windshield with a dirty rag when you're at a stop light, and then stick out their hand for change?  they're annoying.  now if they threaten violence against you if you don't pony up some change (that they get to determine), you're going to tell me that's not theft?
If you think that's an absurd comparison, it can only be because you see personal utility in the things the govt. provides for your taxes, vs. a windshield 'washing'.    
So it sounds like what you're saying is that as long as it can be established that the personal utility to the individual is fair compensation for the money demanded, then it's not theft?
I'm sure you have a nice clean way of ensuring that, right? :wink:

as far as slavery i would say that stealing a portion of the fruits of one's labor is enough to qualify as 'slavery'.  

i mean, i guess that you could be a subsistence farmer and not engage in any commerce with other people, thus avoiding an income so as not to pay taxes....  but being put in that position isn't really freedom, right?

also, you could say it's not 'slavery' since you are free to LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!, but that just sounds the same as the rednecks when they spout that line, too....

hm...
i guess it's a matter of semantics.
i just think it's funny.

Because slavery happens in degrees. Chattel slavery, complete control over a human being... buying and selling individuals who have no freedom whatsoever is indeed the most egregious form of slavery. However, partial slavery is no less slavery, simply a less all-inclusive form of slavery.

A large part of the issues that built up to the American civil war are predicated on that view.

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 04:58:00 PM
Childish, irresponsible resentment of government services is the best path to political freedom!

Remember, kids:  Highways and schools equal slavery!  It's time to return to an agrarian existence at most!

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 04:59:23 PM
Because slavery happens in degrees.

Horseshit.  You're free or you aren't.

Can you, or can you not, willingly leave the situation?  If you can but don't, you are opting in.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 04:59:23 PM
Because slavery happens in degrees.

:spittake:

Congratulations. That might be the single stupidest sentence I've seen on this website, including all of DK's body of work.

but fuck it, words can mean whatever we want them to mean, right?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 05:00:26 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 04:59:23 PM
Because slavery happens in degrees.

Horseshit.  You're free or you aren't.

Can you, or can you not, willingly leave the situation?  If you can but don't, you are opting in.

your kidding, right?

so things like Jim Crow laws didn't actually make black people any less free, huh?  They could leave, right?
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
:lol:

Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2010, 05:04:14 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 05:00:26 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 04:59:23 PM
Because slavery happens in degrees.

Horseshit.  You're free or you aren't.

Can you, or can you not, willingly leave the situation?  If you can but don't, you are opting in.

your kidding, right?

so things like Jim Crow laws didn't actually make black people any less free, huh?  They could leave, right?
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
:lol:

Jim Crow laws also prevented the freedom of movement of blacks.

Learn a little history before you blather, nationalism-boy.

And I never said "love it or leave it", I asked whether you had the ability to opt out (by leaving or other means).

Quit your fucking lying, scumbag.

Freedom may or may not happen incrementally.

Slavery, however, has a pretty pat definition, and if another human being/corporate entity does not OUTRIGHT OWN you, then you are not a slave.

The window washer analogy doesn't work, because there is no founding document that says that the guy will wash your window, and you will pay him money.

Hell, you don't even get an annually elected representative writing legislation regarding the washing of your windows.

The constitution says, "Here's how our government is going to work.  We're gonna provide certain things, and you're gonna pay us part of your wages for them."

That's a contract.  If you want what the Gvt is offering, you have to keep up your side.

OK OK....
Uncle, uncle!
I'm just being a dick fer shitsngiggles.  sorry.  :oops:
i know taxes are not slavery by the standard definition of ownership (which is what one could rightly expect everyone else to be using), i was just running with it.

I'll quit being a turd now.   :p

I got mugged last week  :sad:

But after he was done, he paved my roads, and then paid for my neighbour's parademic training and vehicle  :)

Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 05:09:57 PM
The constitution says, "Here's how our government is going to work.  We're gonna provide certain things, and you're gonna pay us part of your wages for them."

That's a contract.  If you want what the Gvt is offering, you have to keep up your side.

is contract the word that is used, academically?  because that's interesting to be born as a signatory to a contract....
kind of an original sin sorta thing, huh?

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 05:17:16 PM
I got mugged last week  :sad:

But after he was done, he paved my roads, and then paid for my neighbour's parademic training and vehicle  :)

I don't want to pay for roads.  I will, however, still use them every day.

I find that paying for things is unreasonable.  Mahdjgickqual Unicorns should just shit out asphalt wherever I want to go.

AMBIEN!
\
:hosrie:

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 22, 2010, 05:07:32 PM
Freedom may or may not happen incrementally.

Slavery, however, has a pretty pat definition, and if another human being/corporate entity does not OUTRIGHT OWN you, then you are not a slave.

You confuse 'chattel slavery' with slavery. You are describing chattel slavery. However, other forms of partial slavery have existed for centuries. Serfdom, for example was not chattel slavery, but it was partial slavery. Indentured labor, is a form of slavery, but not chattel slavery, in fact debt bondage of any form is considered partial slavery. Sex slavery, even without 'full control' over the individual is considered a form of slavery.

http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/types.html  <--- one set of definitions for types of slavery.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html  <---- another discussion of partial slavery

Tolstoy also discussed slavery in stages, with taxation as a form of partial slavery.

Feel free to disagree with the position, but Daruko? Really?

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 05:17:16 PM
I got mugged last week  :sad:

But after he was done, he paved my roads, and then paid for my neighbour's parademic training and vehicle  :)

Oh, oh!
there actually was this dude up in NJ when i was living there that they were calling the Gentleman Bandit.  he would rob people in their houses.  All the victims would comment on how polite he was, and how well he treated them, asking if they were comfortable when he tied them up, and using 'sir' and 'ma'am'.  He would promise to pay them back eventually, and he thanked them for their 'generosity'.
no shit....  he got a decent number, i believe...

ETA: apparently there's been more than one, and this guy must've been a copycat.... hm...

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:20:47 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 22, 2010, 05:07:32 PM
Freedom may or may not happen incrementally.

Slavery, however, has a pretty pat definition, and if another human being/corporate entity does not OUTRIGHT OWN you, then you are not a slave.

You confuse 'chattel slavery' with slavery. You are describing chattel slavery. However, other forms of partial slavery have existed for centuries. Serfdom, for example was not chattel slavery, but it was partial slavery. Indentured labor, is a form of slavery, but not chattel slavery, in fact debt bondage of any form is considered partial slavery. Sex slavery, even without 'full control' over the individual is considered a form of slavery.

http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/types.html  <--- one set of definitions for types of slavery.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html  <---- another discussion of partial slavery

Tolstoy also discussed slavery in stages, with taxation as a form of partial slavery.

Feel free to disagree with the position, but Daruko? Really?

Could serfs or indentured servants legally leave the situation if they so choose?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 05:20:10 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 05:17:16 PM
I got mugged last week  :sad:

But after he was done, he paved my roads, and then paid for my neighbour's parademic training and vehicle  :)

I don't want to pay for roads.  I will, however, still use them every day.

I find that paying for things is unreasonable.  Mahdjgickqual Unicorns should just shit out asphalt wherever I want to go.

AMBIEN!
\
:hosrie:

I'm sorry, must be the bad coffee... where did I ever say that I don't want to pay for infrastructure and resources? Or have you confused the position I'm taking about the basic construct with my willingness to pay taxes?

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 05:22:10 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:20:47 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 22, 2010, 05:07:32 PM
Freedom may or may not happen incrementally.

Slavery, however, has a pretty pat definition, and if another human being/corporate entity does not OUTRIGHT OWN you, then you are not a slave.

You confuse 'chattel slavery' with slavery. You are describing chattel slavery. However, other forms of partial slavery have existed for centuries. Serfdom, for example was not chattel slavery, but it was partial slavery. Indentured labor, is a form of slavery, but not chattel slavery, in fact debt bondage of any form is considered partial slavery. Sex slavery, even without 'full control' over the individual is considered a form of slavery.

http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/types.html  <--- one set of definitions for types of slavery.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html  <---- another discussion of partial slavery

Tolstoy also discussed slavery in stages, with taxation as a form of partial slavery.

Feel free to disagree with the position, but Daruko? Really?

Could serfs or indentured servants legally leave the situation if they so choose?

Depends on the place and the time. Throughout much of the Middle Ages, serfs could move, but they're moving from being a serf of X to being a serf of Y. In most cases, serfs were not told what they would produce, or what job they would do... the Laandowner would simply demand X share of their earnings, produce, products, goods etc.

Indentured servants generally agree to become indentured servants before the event happens... yet its still considered a form of slavery.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:23:28 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 05:20:10 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 05:17:16 PM
I got mugged last week  :sad:

But after he was done, he paved my roads, and then paid for my neighbour's parademic training and vehicle  :)

I don't want to pay for roads.  I will, however, still use them every day.

I find that paying for things is unreasonable.  Mahdjgickqual Unicorns should just shit out asphalt wherever I want to go.

AMBIEN!
\
:hosrie:

I'm sorry, must be the bad coffee... where did I ever say that I don't want to pay for infrastructure and resources? Or have you confused the position I'm taking about the basic construct with my willingness to pay taxes?

BUT YOU'VE BEEN ENSLAVED BY THEIR ROADS AND BRIDGES!

Rat, they are using the terminology as commonly understood (esp stateside, i would guess).  I guess if a less understood technical definition is to be used, it should be explained up front.

Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2010, 05:26:48 PM
Rat, they are using the terminology as commonly understood (esp stateside, i would guess).  I guess if a less understood technical definition is to be used, it should be explained up front.

Nah, even if I defined it, exaggeration and hyperbole is how we discuss stuff on PD.com... I expected no less.

Hell, it wouldn't be fun otherwise.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:26:01 PM


Depends on the place and the time. Throughout much of the Middle Ages, serfs could move, but they're moving from being a serf of X to being a serf of Y. In most cases, serfs were not told what they would produce, or what job they would do... the Laandowner would simply demand X share of their earnings, produce, products, goods etc.

Indentured servants generally agree to become indentured servants before the event happens... yet its still considered a form of slavery.

1.  I'd like to see some evidence that serfs could do as they pleased, if you don't mind.

2.  If you entered into a contract of your own free will (many didn't), then it isn't slavery, any more than signing up for the military is slavery.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:28:43 PM
Nah, even if I defined it, exaggeration and hyperbole is how we discuss stuff on PD.com...

Yeah.  Claiming that taxes = slavery, for example.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:20:47 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 22, 2010, 05:07:32 PM
Freedom may or may not happen incrementally.

Slavery, however, has a pretty pat definition, and if another human being/corporate entity does not OUTRIGHT OWN you, then you are not a slave.

You confuse 'chattel slavery' with slavery. You are describing chattel slavery. However, other forms of partial slavery have existed for centuries. Serfdom, for example was not chattel slavery, but it was partial slavery. Indentured labor, is a form of slavery, but not chattel slavery, in fact debt bondage of any form is considered partial slavery. Sex slavery, even without 'full control' over the individual is considered a form of slavery.

http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/types.html  <--- one set of definitions for types of slavery.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html  <---- another discussion of partial slavery

Tolstoy also discussed slavery in stages, with taxation as a form of partial slavery.

Feel free to disagree with the position, but Daruko? Really?

funny, neither of those links goes to a dictionary.

Slave (noun) - A person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 22, 2010, 05:31:04 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:20:47 PM

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 22, 2010, 05:07:32 PM
Freedom may or may not happen incrementally.

Slavery, however, has a pretty pat definition, and if another human being/corporate entity does not OUTRIGHT OWN you, then you are not a slave.

You confuse 'chattel slavery' with slavery. You are describing chattel slavery. However, other forms of partial slavery have existed for centuries. Serfdom, for example was not chattel slavery, but it was partial slavery. Indentured labor, is a form of slavery, but not chattel slavery, in fact debt bondage of any form is considered partial slavery. Sex slavery, even without 'full control' over the individual is considered a form of slavery.

http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/types.html  <--- one set of definitions for types of slavery.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates17.html  <---- another discussion of partial slavery

Tolstoy also discussed slavery in stages, with taxation as a form of partial slavery.

Feel free to disagree with the position, but Daruko? Really?

funny, neither of those links goes to a dictionary.

Slave (noun) - A person who is the property of another person and whose labor and also whose life often is subject to the owner's volition.

Teabagger sites > Dictionary.  Just saying.

Dok,
Four square for making words mean anything I like.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 05:32:22 PM
Four square for making words mean anything I like.

Well, isn't that just squiggly teacup of you.

Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 05:34:40 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2010, 05:32:22 PM
Four square for making words mean anything I like.

Well, isn't that just squiggly teacup of you.

Your stop sign is tantamount to slavery, sir.  Get your appendage out of my octopus.

Happy Noodle Dok,
Up in your printer table.

lol, Lew Rockwell (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter).

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 05:37:22 PM
lol, Lew Rockwell (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter).

QuoteRon Paul doesn't seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

BRILLIANT!   :lol:

Huh, I had no idea that Tolstoy and Spooner were teabaggers! Damn secret Teabagger Cabal!!!!

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:40:38 PM
Huh, I had no idea that Tolstoy and Spooner were teabaggers! Damn secret Teabagger Cabal!!!!

Talking about Lew "sheets" Rockwell, actually.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 04:44:50 PMThen you misunderstand my political stance. The corporations are worse than the government generally speaking. Oddly enough, I hope that the health care bill becomes law, now that its passed. I have no illusions that we will ever vote in someone who will remove taxes and replace it with some better solution. Personally, I find the idea that some group of people have the right to tell me what to do is silly. However, in this world of talking monkeys, the tribal hierarchy is not about to disappear. So if the big monkeys in Washington are going to take our money, I think health care is a great place for that money to go. In fact, the health care issue is one of the biggest reasons I voted for Obama. (The fact that I would die before helping Sarah Palin get anywhere near the White House was a close second).

who's the monkey now?

you're not making any sense. there is a difference between taking money and redistributing it for the greater good (socialism) and taking money and keeping it to yourself (theft).

the fact that your corporations and politicians fill their fat pockets with a large chunk of that money can be called theft, and that is your problem. taxation itself, however is not.

you will always have to contribute to the greater good, Ratatosk. in one way or another, on one scale or another. we are in fact tribal monkeys and hardly anyone can survive compeltely on their own without being a leech upon others.

you see this in any community. everybody contributes. in your household, you do chores, right? sometimes it's with goods and services, but on a larger scale it's way more efficient to do it with money.

with your household chores, you have the same choice. you cannot tell Sjaantze "nuh-uh I wont do the dishes" and expect to live comfortably in your house. in the same sense you cannot tell the government elected by the people "nuh-uh I wont pay my taxes" and expect all these public services and infrastructure and things.
and similarly, you have a choice to break up with Sjaantze and move out, like you have a choice to stop being a US citizen and/or emigrate.

so carrying your simile further, you and Sjaantze are both just as much a slave of the household system you have agreed upon to have clean clothes and dishes and vacuumed rooms, and this system is just as much a horrible thief of your valuable free time and of course the household money you are forced to spend in order to have food and cleaning products.

if you want to call that theft and/or slavery you remind me a littlebit of Calvin calling his dad a horrible tyrant for making him clean his room ...

MY DISHWASHER IS FULL OF NAZIS!

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 22, 2010, 05:45:01 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 04:44:50 PMThen you misunderstand my political stance. The corporations are worse than the government generally speaking. Oddly enough, I hope that the health care bill becomes law, now that its passed. I have no illusions that we will ever vote in someone who will remove taxes and replace it with some better solution. Personally, I find the idea that some group of people have the right to tell me what to do is silly. However, in this world of talking monkeys, the tribal hierarchy is not about to disappear. So if the big monkeys in Washington are going to take our money, I think health care is a great place for that money to go. In fact, the health care issue is one of the biggest reasons I voted for Obama. (The fact that I would die before helping Sarah Palin get anywhere near the White House was a close second).

who's the monkey now?

you're not making any sense. there is a difference between taking money and redistributing it for the greater good (socialism) and taking money and keeping it to yourself (theft).

the fact that your corporations and politicians fill their fat pockets with a large chunk of that money can be called theft, and that is your problem. taxation itself, however is not.

you will always have to contribute to the greater good, Ratatosk. in one way or another, on one scale or another. we are in fact tribal monkeys and hardly anyone can survive compeltely on their own without being a leech upon others.

you see this in any community. everybody contributes. in your household, you do chores, right? sometimes it's with goods and services, but on a larger scale it's way more efficient to do it with money.

with your household chores, you have the same choice. you cannot tell Sjaantze "nuh-uh I wont do the dishes" and expect to live comfortably in your house. in the same sense you cannot tell the government elected by the people "nuh-uh I wont pay my taxes" and expect all these public services and infrastructure and things.
and similarly, you have a choice to break up with Sjaantze and move out, like you have a choice to stop being a US citizen and/or emigrate.

so carrying your simile further, you and Sjaantze are both just as much a slave of the household system you have agreed upon to have clean clothes and dishes and vacuumed rooms, and this system is just as much a horrible thief of your valuable free time and of course the household money you are forced to spend in order to have food and cleaning products.

if you want to call that theft and/or slavery you remind me a littlebit of Calvin calling his dad a horrible tyrant for making him clean his room ...

Perhaps I should have called it a 'necessary form of slavery' in order to clear up the misconception that I am trying to avoid taxation, not pay my fair share or otherwise am a Teabagger.

Hell, personally, I find any for of government to be an imposition on liberty, but as we live in a universe of monkeys, I understand the necessity of it... Rational anarchism and all that ;-)

I believe that TripZip has won the thread.

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:51:23 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 22, 2010, 05:45:01 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 04:44:50 PMThen you misunderstand my political stance. The corporations are worse than the government generally speaking. Oddly enough, I hope that the health care bill becomes law, now that its passed. I have no illusions that we will ever vote in someone who will remove taxes and replace it with some better solution. Personally, I find the idea that some group of people have the right to tell me what to do is silly. However, in this world of talking monkeys, the tribal hierarchy is not about to disappear. So if the big monkeys in Washington are going to take our money, I think health care is a great place for that money to go. In fact, the health care issue is one of the biggest reasons I voted for Obama. (The fact that I would die before helping Sarah Palin get anywhere near the White House was a close second).

who's the monkey now?

you're not making any sense. there is a difference between taking money and redistributing it for the greater good (socialism) and taking money and keeping it to yourself (theft).

the fact that your corporations and politicians fill their fat pockets with a large chunk of that money can be called theft, and that is your problem. taxation itself, however is not.

you will always have to contribute to the greater good, Ratatosk. in one way or another, on one scale or another. we are in fact tribal monkeys and hardly anyone can survive compeltely on their own without being a leech upon others.

you see this in any community. everybody contributes. in your household, you do chores, right? sometimes it's with goods and services, but on a larger scale it's way more efficient to do it with money.

with your household chores, you have the same choice. you cannot tell Sjaantze "nuh-uh I wont do the dishes" and expect to live comfortably in your house. in the same sense you cannot tell the government elected by the people "nuh-uh I wont pay my taxes" and expect all these public services and infrastructure and things.
and similarly, you have a choice to break up with Sjaantze and move out, like you have a choice to stop being a US citizen and/or emigrate.

so carrying your simile further, you and Sjaantze are both just as much a slave of the household system you have agreed upon to have clean clothes and dishes and vacuumed rooms, and this system is just as much a horrible thief of your valuable free time and of course the household money you are forced to spend in order to have food and cleaning products.

if you want to call that theft and/or slavery you remind me a littlebit of Calvin calling his dad a horrible tyrant for making him clean his room ...

Perhaps I should have called it a 'necessary form of slavery' in order to clear up the misconception that I am trying to avoid taxation, not pay my fair share or otherwise am a Teabagger.

Hell, personally, I find any for of government to be an imposition on liberty, but as we live in a universe of monkeys, I understand the necessity of it... Rational anarchism and all that ;-)

perhaps you should stop digging your heels in and call it something other than "slavery", since it is not slavery in any way, shape, or form.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 22, 2010, 05:52:22 PM
I believe that TripZip has won the thread.

Seconded.

thirded

Fourthed

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 22, 2010, 05:53:13 PM

perhaps you should stop digging your heels in and call it something other than "slavery", since it is not slavery in any way, shape, or form.

That would require rationalism, which seems to mean something different than "rational anarchism", as anyone who knows that they're on a planet full of monkeys will realize that there's nothing rational about anarchy.

TripZip =  :mittens:

Ratatosk = (http://imgur.com/UvOr8.gif)

Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 05:47:07 PM
MY DISHWASHER IS FULL OF NAZIS!

:lulz: :mittens:

Quote from: Ratatosk on March 22, 2010, 05:51:23 PMPerhaps I should have called it a 'necessary form of slavery' in order to clear up the misconception that I am trying to avoid taxation, not pay my fair share

Then you are like Calvin calling his dad a horrible, but necessary tyrant, while claiming he is using the word in its literal common usage of the term.

Okay, there are degrees in childishness, I suppose.

I'm actually pretty glad the bill passed. Not just for my own health needs, but also because every single one of my Republican buddies just de-friended me on Facebook.  :lulz:

FWIW, I'm also glad for all you guys that your bill passed. Hope you really get something resembling decent healthcare soon!

Hoshit, a healthcare bill passed? Did not hear; wasn't paying attention. :eek:

Obama needs to sign it, and it needs to go to the Senate.

Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 22, 2010, 07:05:33 PM
Hoshit, a healthcare bill passed? Did not hear; wasn't paying attention. :eek:

Technically, a health insurance bill passed.  There's a difference.

Ah.

Quote from: LMNO on March 22, 2010, 07:09:07 PM

Quote from: Professor Freeky on March 22, 2010, 07:05:33 PM
Hoshit, a healthcare bill passed? Did not hear; wasn't paying attention. :eek:

Technically, a health insurance bill passed.  There's a difference.

its still all about the money . . . 

I would have preferred to see a more complete package passed... but half a loaf of bread is much nicer than none.

Still, putting insurance carriers in their places certainly is a start.

Yep, now only if they could do that with the rest of the corporations...

Quote from: Suu on March 22, 2010, 07:31:08 PM
Still, putting insurance carriers in their places certainly is a start.

Is that actually going to happen, though?

In Washington DC?  Accountability?

HA! HA!

Maybe no accountability, but at least they let us keep our sammiches! (except for 33% of them)

Yes Rat, but you might get FREE DRUGS in return! What's not to like? ;-)

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 22, 2010, 08:12:48 PM
Yes Rat, but you might get FREE DRUGS in return! What's not to like? ;-)

ROFL  :lulz:

I was really, really sick last month. I have a good job and very good insurance. So I went to the doctor, paid my $20 co-pay, got poked at, given two shots and three prescriptions. I then went to fill the prescriptions and they gave me one for free and one that cost four dollars. They're weren't generics... that's just apparently what they cost now at Giant Eagle.

This country is so fucking bizarre.

I read an article in the newspaper last week, about a Dutch correspondent in uh Washington I think. He went to get his meds at the apothecary, and found that exactly the same meds cost 6x as much as in the Netherlands. When he asked about that they said "Well, I can probably take 20% off, but no more." -- WTF you can haggle about the price of medication? :lol: Truly bizarre indeed.

But it's totally free market capitalism that way and therefore the supply and demand and blahblah and it poops unicorns.

Quote from: Triple Zero on March 22, 2010, 08:21:12 PM
I read an article in the newspaper last week, about a Dutch correspondent in uh Washington I think. He went to get his meds at the apothecary, and found that exactly the same meds cost 6x as much as in the Netherlands. When he asked about that they said "Well, I can probably take 20% off, but no more." -- WTF you can haggle about the price of medication? :lol: Truly bizarre indeed.

But it's totally free market capitalism that way and therefore the supply and demand and blahblah and it poops unicorns.

But its not totally free market... corporations can hold patents on drugs and therefore hold the market on those drugs. Generics only show up after a patent has poomped out. There are even comercials now where a company will say "Blah, blah, blah you should take our drugs... if you can't pay for it we can help you.... talk to your doctor today!!"

I still haven't figured out how that works intelligently.

also, if it actually said 'apothecary' it was probably some hippie hut, and all bets are off.

Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2010, 08:26:14 PM
also, if it actually said 'apothecary' it was probably some hippie hut, and all bets are off.

I think its a Eurospag reference to the Pharmacy.  :evil:

Yes, probably pharmacy then. I mistranslated, it was a Dutch article.

Ya.
Pharmacy is where we get the Real Drugs that make everything better. (consult with your doctor. may cause rectal bleeding)

Apothecary is where you go to get those deprecated herbal supplements and ineffective magic crystal deodorants.  Or else you're playing Ultima.

Or you live in Elizabethan England.

That's about as archaic as saying you're off to the tavern.

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 08:38:32 PM
Or you live in Elizabethan England.

That's about as archaic as saying you're off to the tavern.

we have Taverns in our locale.
except at ours you get to eat their crappy food while watching a movie in some crappy theater.  the horrible nature of this idea hits you the one and only time you go there, as you realize that you can barely see the shitty food that you are eating.  it's disturbing....

In Washington State, a tavern is legally distinct from a bar, as a tavern only holds a beer & wine license whereas a full bar holds a liquor license as well.

 :argh!:

In restaurant speak "taverns" are different than "pubs" or "bars".

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/eighteenth-brumaire-barack-obama

:x

And that's just my reaction to the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_Brumaire) title (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/index.htm).

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!

The right is simply going further and further into crazyland.

Quote from: Suu on March 22, 2010, 06:56:19 PM
I'm actually pretty glad the bill passed. Not just for my own health needs, but also because every single one of my Republican buddies just de-friended me on Facebook.  :lulz:

Too funny.

Well, back to stupid management fad class.  So far, in one morning, they have managed to use every management fad buzzword since 1989.

There is probably more fun among these links:

http://www.theforgottenstreet.com/
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/03/americas-day-of-wreckoning.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575130321235660474.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575100091815276712.html?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWI3MGNjMjVlMmJmYjEwNzdlYTYzZWYwNDlmNWIxNzg=
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/96163/
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/21/the-gloater-in-chief-another-stone-laid-in-the-foundation-of-the-american-dream/
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/299691.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025892.php

The twitching...it...won't...stop...

So now that the baby-killing death-panel bill passed, can it be rapture time?

Quote from: Z³ on March 22, 2010, 09:30:36 PM
So now that the baby-killing death-panel bill passed, can it be rapture time?

I hope so, get those Conservatards out of here so I can live my life in peace.

Also, just found this ditty:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/35903126#35903126

Also this http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/299691.php

QuoteWe have a war now, should this become law. The little liberal weenies who have been crying about illegal wars over seas are about to have a real reason to cry. This shall not stand in my land.

Never.

Posted by: Odins Acolyte at March 22, 2010 09:47 AM

ODIN DOES NOT APPROVE OF THIS LIBERAL BULLSHIT.

Jaysus Chroist!
\
:lulz:

Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2010, 09:57:06 PM
Also this http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/299691.php

QuoteWe have a war now, should this become law. The little liberal weenies who have been crying about illegal wars over seas are about to have a real reason to cry. This shall not stand in my land.

Never.

Posted by: Odins Acolyte at March 22, 2010 09:47 AM

ODIN DOES NOT APPROVE OF THIS LIBERAL BULLSHIT.

:lulz:

I was accosted at the gym, after work today.

Hardly surprising.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 01:49:15 AM

:lulz:

I was accosted at the gym, after work today.

Hardly surprising.

I sorta got into it with one of my truck drivers. I told him to get out of my lab and go drive on the socialist roads paid for with MY tax dollars!!!

Also, on Facebook I saw that one of my old friends joined the ground "I Bet we can find 1,000,000 people against health care reform". Her daughter has an inoperable brain tumor and probably won't be able to get regular health insurance in about 10 years.

:facepalm:

This was posted on a friend's page after an argument ensued:

QuoteYa know what.I am poor...I lost my job to China and Mexico...I am putting myself, plus one other child thru college right now...and trying to figure out how to save some money for my sophmore's college. Yes..I get unemployment..which barely covers shit.but we are getting by.I have no health care...could probably go get medicaid and welfare and all that shit...but refuse becuz it is people like that that piss me off. And this bill will hurt my parents when they retire...so, I would be one of those "Poor mothers, with no job and kids" who is not happy with this at all. Don't lump us all into the worthless category.

So let me get this straight. You have no job, no healthcare, and you're struggling on unemployment, yet you're more worried about your image than the wellbeing of your own kids. Nice.

Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 02:06:51 AM
This was posted on a friend's page after an argument ensued:

QuoteYa know what.I am poor...I lost my job to China and Mexico...I am putting myself, plus one other child thru college right now...and trying to figure out how to save some money for my sophmore's college. Yes..I get unemployment..which barely covers shit.but we are getting by.I have no health care...could probably go get medicaid and welfare and all that shit...but refuse becuz it is people like that that piss me off. And this bill will hurt my parents when they retire...so, I would be one of those "Poor mothers, with no job and kids" who is not happy with this at all. Don't lump us all into the worthless category.

So let me get this straight. You have no job, no healthcare, and you're struggling on unemployment, yet you're more worried about your image than the wellbeing of your own kids. Nice.

Yeah, you should post that.  "You are a bad mother."

Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 23, 2010, 01:56:07 AM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 01:49:15 AM

:lulz:

I was accosted at the gym, after work today.

Hardly surprising.

I sorta got into it with one of my truck drivers. I told him to get out of my lab and go drive on the socialist roads paid for with MY tax dollars!!!

Also, on Facebook I saw that one of my old friends joined the ground "I Bet we can find 1,000,000 people against health care reform". Her daughter has an inoperable brain tumor and probably won't be able to get regular health insurance in about 10 years.

I am known to be "dangerously liberal", so some puny little 160 pound dude got all torqued up watching O'Reilly, and started trying to shove me.

So I kicked him in the jimmy. 

Also, your old friend is a retard.

BAD MOTHERS! :crankey:

I AM A LIBERAL SOCIALIST SCUMBAG, AND I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS LEGISLATION.

Quote from: Calamity Nigel on March 23, 2010, 02:22:30 AM
BAD MOTHERS! :crankey:

And in comes Nigel to lay the smackdown!

What exactly does the bill accomplish? I've tried looking it up but cannot find a explanation without rampant bias.

The current bill that was just passed stops health insurance companies from putting limits on what they can offer and stops the "'pre-existing condition" bullshit as well. Which means if I get back on insurance, they can't dick me over anymore because I have asthma.

Quote from: Kai on March 23, 2010, 02:28:19 AM
I AM A LIBERAL SOCIALIST SCUMBAG, AND I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS LEGISLATION.

So, what, you're FOR catastrophic caps and pre-existing condition denials?

I suspect Kai would rather a system that essentially wasn't a free handout to the very same companies who made healthcare unaffordable for many Americans in the first place.  I mean, while undoubtedly cheaper and causing less dead bodies, this is essentially Obama's variation on the Iraq war: a massive, taxpayer funded orgy of cash for his political backers.

The White House and Senate were angling to kill the public option from the go, however, so that alternative was never going to fly. Even so, it was the best option, and this bill doesn't reflect that, or the views of most Americans (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss).  While it's certainly better than nothing, compared to what it could've been, it isn't a very good bill.

Quote from: Risus on March 23, 2010, 02:59:20 AM
What exactly does the bill accomplish? I've tried looking it up but cannot find a explanation without rampant bias.

Instead of providing healthcare at some sort of reasonable cost through taxes or funding, all US citizens are required to get health insurance from a private insurance company.  If you're too poor, the Gvt will give you a partial subsidy, unless you want your plan to cover abortions.  If you have a pre-existing condition, you will be given a choice of providers that must accept you regardless of your condition.


Please note that there are no measures to actually control costs; the "plan" is that by adding another 30 million or so people to the pool, the "market forces" will drive down the price of health insurance.


Please also note that we have already seen what "market forces" can do when left unchecked.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 10:54:06 AM
I suspect Kai would rather a system that essentially wasn't a free handout to the very same companies who made healthcare unaffordable for many Americans in the first place.  I mean, while undoubtedly cheaper and causing less dead bodies, this is essentially Obama's variation on the Iraq war: a massive, taxpayer funded orgy of cash for his political backers.

The White House and Senate were angling to kill the public option from the go, however, so that alternative was never going to fly. Even so, it was the best option, and this bill doesn't reflect that, or the views of most Americans (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss).  While it's certainly better than nothing, compared to what it could've been, it isn't a very good bill.

Walk before you run.  While I can see that the bill has some odious components to it, at least catastrophic caps and pre-existing conditions have been removed.

Quote from: LMNO on March 23, 2010, 02:02:50 PM
Please note that there are no measures to actually control costs; the "plan" is that by adding another 30 million or so people to the pool, the "market forces" will drive down the price of health insurance.

Disregard previous comment.  This blows ass.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 02:06:45 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 23, 2010, 02:02:50 PM
Please note that there are no measures to actually control costs; the "plan" is that by adding another 30 million or so people to the pool, the "market forces" will drive down the price of health insurance.

Disregard previous comment.  This blows ass.

See, now I'm mad about it now that I know this.



Earlier today one of the token conservatives at this school started on me with how we're totally fucked now that the bill passed. I have quietly put up with this guy for a while, but 8 AM was a bit too early so I snapped back that if we've managed to survive 9 years of war profiteering, jingoism, and faith-based government activity, we can survive this shit.

What I didn't say was that I don't particularly care if money gets taken away from people who think the Iraq War was a good idea, or who think that the solution to every international problem is to "bomb them back to the Stone Age", if it means hardworking, worthy people that I know and care about can get some goddamn health care.

Cainad,
grumpy and not to be reasoned with on this rainy morning

Quote from: Cainad on March 23, 2010, 02:18:11 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 02:06:45 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 23, 2010, 02:02:50 PM
Please note that there are no measures to actually control costs; the "plan" is that by adding another 30 million or so people to the pool, the "market forces" will drive down the price of health insurance.

Disregard previous comment.  This blows ass.

See, now I'm mad about it now that I know this.



Earlier today one of the token conservatives at this school started on me with how we're totally fucked now that the bill passed. I have quietly put up with this guy for a while, but 8 AM was a bit too early so I snapped back that if we've managed to survive 9 years of war profiteering, jingoism, and faith-based government activity, we can survive this shit.

What I didn't say was that I don't particularly care if money gets taken away from people who think the Iraq War was a good idea, or who think that the solution to every international problem is to "bomb them back to the Stone Age", if it means hardworking, worthy people that I know and care about can get some goddamn health care.

Cainad,
grumpy and not to be reasoned with on this rainy morning

But that's not how it's going to work.

The GOP must be hugging themselves in glee.  Their buddies just got a handout, AND they get to whimper and shriek.

However, you have to consider that the majority of people already have health insurance.  This bill doesn't affect them.  It doesn't force them to join a government-run plan, it won't drive their rates rates up (usually taken out of their paycheck before they even see it), and they won't even notice it.  It just puts more people on the Insurance Company rolls that weren't there before, and were using the Emergency Room as primary care, which does drive up costs.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 02:20:14 PM

Quote from: Cainad on March 23, 2010, 02:18:11 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 02:06:45 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 23, 2010, 02:02:50 PM
Please note that there are no measures to actually control costs; the "plan" is that by adding another 30 million or so people to the pool, the "market forces" will drive down the price of health insurance.

Disregard previous comment.  This blows ass.

See, now I'm mad about it now that I know this.



Earlier today one of the token conservatives at this school started on me with how we're totally fucked now that the bill passed. I have quietly put up with this guy for a while, but 8 AM was a bit too early so I snapped back that if we've managed to survive 9 years of war profiteering, jingoism, and faith-based government activity, we can survive this shit.

What I didn't say was that I don't particularly care if money gets taken away from people who think the Iraq War was a good idea, or who think that the solution to every international problem is to "bomb them back to the Stone Age", if it means hardworking, worthy people that I know and care about can get some goddamn health care.

Cainad,
grumpy and not to be reasoned with on this rainy morning

But that's not how it's going to work.

The GOP must be hugging themselves in glee.  Their buddies just got a handout, AND they get to whimper and shriek.

Yeah, I know. And the GOP voter base is still angry enough about it to continue being against everything the Dems put forward.

In what way has the GOP not won this round?

Quote from: LMNO on March 23, 2010, 02:24:03 PM
However, you have to consider that the majority of people already have health insurance.  This bill doesn't affect them.  It doesn't force them to join a government-run plan, it won't drive their rates rates up (usually taken out of their paycheck before they even see it), and they won't even notice it.  It just puts more people on the Insurance Company rolls that weren't there before, and were using the Emergency Room as primary care, which does drive up costs.

This.

I for one will at least have the option to go to a real doctor as long as I don't have insurance through my workplace. Hospital costs > office costs. And they can't turn me down because I'm asthmatic.

Maybe I have a less-spitting POV on this because it's actually going to benefit me, and when I no longer need state-aided care, I don't have to worry about it anymore. Yes, I have to join a private company, but if the feds do subsidize it or I'm offered reasonable rates for reasonable care that I can afford, then the bill did it's job.

We're still a capitalist country, the insurance providers are still going to be making a buck, but now they can't be as picky about who they cover.

The problem of cost containment is one which is being totally ignored by Congress currently.  Partly because Congress (and, it seems, the economy) runs on a whole load of Clap Your Hands If You Believe and partly because Fuck You, We're Congress, That's Why.

Also, this health care plan was based on Nixon's health care plan.  Yeah.  While some conservative commentators are probably going to look stupid, bringing that up so soon after the Death Panel nonsense, it will be mentioned should the scheme be wildly successful or popular in any way. 

Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 02:48:23 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 23, 2010, 02:24:03 PM
However, you have to consider that the majority of people already have health insurance.  This bill doesn't affect them.  It doesn't force them to join a government-run plan, it won't drive their rates rates up (usually taken out of their paycheck before they even see it), and they won't even notice it.  It just puts more people on the Insurance Company rolls that weren't there before, and were using the Emergency Room as primary care, which does drive up costs.

This.

I for one will at least have the option to go to a real doctor as long as I don't have insurance through my workplace. Hospital costs > office costs. And they can't turn me down because I'm asthmatic.

Maybe I have a less-spitting POV on this because it's actually going to benefit me, and when I no longer need state-aided care, I don't have to worry about it anymore. Yes, I have to join a private company, but if the feds do subsidize it or I'm offered reasonable rates for reasonable care that I can afford, then the bill did it's job.

We're still a capitalist country, the insurance providers are still going to be making a buck, but now they can't be as picky about who they cover.

Exactly, Suu.  I have 2 brothers who are covered by their work policies but the out-of-pocket expenses to fund their families on same insurance plan means their wives and children GO WITHOUT.  How fucked up is that?  Now that the prices will be going down and the mandate is going through, the insurance companies will be funding those wives and children.

This also means adult children can go back on their parents' policies, so that the adult children with cancer and other huge-ass medical bills their parents are putting their houses in hock to pay for can get some assistance as well.

This bill is not perfect by a long shot, but it's better than nothing.  Period.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
The problem of cost containment is one which is being totally ignored by Congress currently.  Partly because Congress (and, it seems, the economy) runs on a whole load of Clap Your Hands If You Believe and partly because Fuck You, We're Congress, That's Why.

Also, this health care plan was based on Nixon's health care plan.  Yeah.  While some conservative commentators are probably going to look stupid, bringing that up so soon after the Death Panel nonsense, it will be mentioned should the scheme be wildly successful or popular in any way. 

We have to start somewhere.  You see how up in arms the red part of the country is over this half-assed thing?  Can you imagine trying to pass something that was less fucked up?

I'm bitter that this is probably the only so called "reform" I voted Obama in for that is going to be passed.

We can forget pulling out of Iraq's ass and Gitmo being closed, I fear.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 03:15:35 PM
Also, this health care plan was based on Nixon's health care plan.  Yeah.  While some conservative commentators are probably going to look stupid, bringing that up so soon after the Death Panel nonsense, it will be mentioned should the scheme be wildly successful or popular in any way. 

This.  The bill that was passed is largely made up of past Republican ideas from Goldwater on up through Nixon and Reagan.


The fact that the Dems were branded socialists without even a hint of a public option or Medicare for all proves that the Left is now the Middle and the Right are Fucking Insanse.

Last time I checked, the Democrats had a majority in both houses in Congress and the White House, and the Republicans were a bunch of discredited, conspiracy theorist losers whose opinions shouldn't matter.

Obama didn't want a public option, and he and the rest of the White House spent all of last summer sabotaging one.  If Obama had come out hard in favour of a public option, he could've gotten it passsed - public opinion was there, and its very hard to go up against a sitting President from your own party (especially when he has a rabid attack dog like Rahm Emmanuel at his side).  But he didn't, and the Progressive Democratic Caucus are basically spineless wimps anyway, so Obama steam-rollered them all into getting the result he wanted and planned for from the very beginning.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 03:26:27 PM
Last time I checked, the Democrats had a majority in both houses in Congress and the White House, and the Republicans were a bunch of discredited, conspiracy theorist losers whose opinions shouldn't matter.

Obama didn't want a public option, and he and the rest of the White House spent all of last summer sabotaging one.  If Obama had come out hard in favour of a public option, he could've gotten it passsed - public opinion was there, and its very hard to go up against a sitting President from your own party (especially when he has a rabid attack dog like Rahm Emmanuel at his side).  But he didn't, and the Progressive Democratic Caucus are basically spineless wimps anyway, so Obama steam-rollered them all into getting the result he wanted and planned for from the very beginning.

Oh, joy.


Goddamn Smiler.

It's very much the fact that the Democrats are pansy-asses and the Reich Wingers are much better at organizing their mobs to great media effect.

However, the shitty fact that the LOOKS of what's happening matters almost as much if not more in the public opinion than what is ACTUALLY happening with these bills and with Congress in general makes the mice of men even mousier.  The backroom deals as the Republicans are calling them are laughable...the concessions made by Obama's camp are even more ridiculous.

But I would much RATHER see this weak-kneed attempt to revise our current debacle of a system happen as it's better than nothing.  And nothing is about what we were about to get until this recent push happened.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0310/Rahm_vindicated.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Evidence that this whole charade was carefully staged kabuki theatre for the DC watching masses.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 03:26:27 PM
Last time I checked, the Democrats had a majority in both houses in Congress and the White House, and the Republicans were a bunch of discredited, conspiracy theorist losers whose opinions shouldn't matter.

The dems can't get it through their heads that they're in the majority.

Personally, I don't care if the Dems are taken for a ride by the White House.  The toadying that was done during the last decade to some blatant powergrabs by the Bush White House means they have years of abuse to make up for and get fisted up the ass in consequence.  If Rahm's learned to play them for the fools they are, fine, I can except that.  I'm all Machiavellian when it comes to Congress.  Fuck the playas as long as they play my way.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 03:35:16 PM
Evidence that this whole charade was carefully staged kabuki bukake theatre for the DC watching masses.

fixed for....um... idunno.
but it's definitely fixed.

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:21:54 PM

We can forget pulling out of Iraq's ass and Gitmo being closed, I fear.

That's next. So sayeth my Air Force and Marine buddies, but it can't be done overnight.

Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 03:51:45 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:21:54 PM

We can forget pulling out of Iraq's ass and Gitmo being closed, I fear.

That's next. So sayeth my Air Force and Marine buddies, but it can't be done overnight.

Yes it can.  Reagan pulled out of Beirut in a week.  Obama's had more than a year.

Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 03:51:45 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:21:54 PM

We can forget pulling out of Iraq's ass and Gitmo being closed, I fear.

That's next. So sayeth my Air Force and Marine buddies, but it can't be done overnight.

No, but we'll still have a "legacy" force left behind like we do everyotherfuckingplace we've been to.  WHY we are still in Germany, etc.

I think I'm just too upset over seeing so many guys have to go back to Iraq and Afghanistan after their THIRD and FOURTH tours.  Their wives and kids have had enough. /living in SD isn't always so pretty

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
No, but we'll still have a "legacy" force left behind like we do everyotherfuckingplace we've been to.  WHY we are still in Germany, etc.

Because the Germans are kind enough to let us use their airbase?

"Safe" removal would, apparently, take between 16 and 18 months but Obama intends to keep 50,000-60,000 troops in country to referee the upcoming Iraqi Civil War.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:55:13 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
No, but we'll still have a "legacy" force left behind like we do everyotherfuckingplace we've been to.  WHY we are still in Germany, etc.

Because the Germans are kind enough to let us use their airbase?

exactly.  Don't see Iraqi kindness blowing the same way...and neither should it, really, to be honest.

I'm just too terribly bitter for this topic, I think.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 03:55:44 PM
"Safe" removal would, apparently, take between 16 and 18 months but Obama intends to keep 50,000-60,000 troops in country to referee the upcoming Iraqi Civil War.

Safe for whom?  The Iraqis or ourselves?

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:56:59 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:55:13 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
No, but we'll still have a "legacy" force left behind like we do everyotherfuckingplace we've been to.  WHY we are still in Germany, etc.

Because the Germans are kind enough to let us use their airbase?

exactly.  Don't see Iraqi kindness blowing the same way...and neither should it, really, to be honest.

I'm just too terribly bitter for this topic, I think.

The Germans have always been good allies (post-Nazi Germany, of course).  The fact that they are still after Bush and his crowd bad-mouthed them speaks more to their character than ours.

American troops, presumably.

I'm guessing there are lots of files to shred and burn, not to mention "securing" weapons systems for return.  Because it would be terrible if American weapons were used by warring Iraqi parties without them paying for them.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 03:59:05 PM
American troops, presumably.

I'm guessing there are lots of files to shred and burn, not to mention "securing" weapons systems for return.  Because it would be terrible if American weapons were used by warring Iraqi parties without them paying for them.

Yeah, I can see that.  We could be out of there in 2 weeks, if we really wanted to.

I'll buy 6 months, done properly, gear and all.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:58:24 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:56:59 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:55:13 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
No, but we'll still have a "legacy" force left behind like we do everyotherfuckingplace we've been to.  WHY we are still in Germany, etc.

Because the Germans are kind enough to let us use their airbase?

exactly.  Don't see Iraqi kindness blowing the same way...and neither should it, really, to be honest.

I'm just too terribly bitter for this topic, I think.

The Germans have always been good allies (post-Nazi Germany, of course).  The fact that they are still after Bush and his crowd bad-mouthed them speaks more to their character than ours.

The Right-Wing Agenda had an interesting pattern of demonization and boot-licking in general when it came ot the Yurospags.  I'm sure there's a political theory book or two out on it by now, just haven't seen any lately.

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 04:03:01 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:58:24 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:56:59 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:55:13 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
No, but we'll still have a "legacy" force left behind like we do everyotherfuckingplace we've been to.  WHY we are still in Germany, etc.

Because the Germans are kind enough to let us use their airbase?

exactly.  Don't see Iraqi kindness blowing the same way...and neither should it, really, to be honest.

I'm just too terribly bitter for this topic, I think.

The Germans have always been good allies (post-Nazi Germany, of course).  The fact that they are still after Bush and his crowd bad-mouthed them speaks more to their character than ours.

The Right-Wing Agenda had an interesting pattern of demonization and boot-licking in general when it came ot the Yurospags.  I'm sure there's a political theory book or two out on it by now, just haven't seen any lately.

To a certain kind of person, "ally" = "vassal".

Here we are - this explains the 18 month thing in more detail http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402741.html

I'd originally heard it bandied around in 2007 or so, but I can't seem to find the articles about that.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 04:06:03 PM
Here we are - this explains the 18 month thing in more detail http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402741.html

I'd originally heard it bandied around in 2007 or so, but I can't seem to find the articles about that.

Well, the GAO tends to be pretty non-partisan...which leaves me a little distressed with the "nimble" army Bush 41 and Clinton implimented.

Of course, we can't just leave without scrubbing the blood off the walls of the "enhanced interrogation" rooms.  That would be rude.

Hey, I just realised...when will Rush Limbaugh start packing his bags?  It's time to move to Costa Rica!

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 04:09:39 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 04:06:03 PM
Here we are - this explains the 18 month thing in more detail http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402741.html

I'd originally heard it bandied around in 2007 or so, but I can't seem to find the articles about that.

Well, the GAO tends to be pretty non-partisan...which leaves me a little distressed with the "nimble" army Bush 41 and Clinton implimented.

Of course, we can't just leave without scrubbing the blood off the walls of the "enhanced interrogation" rooms.  That would be rude.

...mayhap they subcontracted the work out?

Twas the Bush Way when folks didn't want to get their hands dirty--I mean be accountable--I mean would rather foot the bill and someone else do all the dirtywork...

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 04:10:10 PM
Hey, I just realised...when will Rush Limbaugh start packing his bags?  It's time to move to Costa Rica!

I was wondering about that last night. We should troll his website, asking about it.

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 04:10:46 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 04:09:39 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 04:06:03 PM
Here we are - this explains the 18 month thing in more detail http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402741.html

I'd originally heard it bandied around in 2007 or so, but I can't seem to find the articles about that.

Well, the GAO tends to be pretty non-partisan...which leaves me a little distressed with the "nimble" army Bush 41 and Clinton implimented.

Of course, we can't just leave without scrubbing the blood off the walls of the "enhanced interrogation" rooms.  That would be rude.

...mayhap they subcontracted the work out?

Twas the Bush Way when folks didn't want to get their hands dirty--I mean be accountable--I mean would rather foot the bill and someone else do all the dirtywork...

Sounds pretty plausible.  That and the troops are pretty spread out, IIRC.  "Embedded in the community" after Petraeus switched strategies.  Making sure people and guns didn't get lost along the way is probably going to take some time.

Quote from: Hover Cat on March 23, 2010, 04:13:54 PM

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 04:10:10 PM
Hey, I just realised...when will Rush Limbaugh start packing his bags?  It's time to move to Costa Rica!

I was wondering about that last night. We should troll his website, asking about it.

If someone here knows someone who lives near him, they should get a crowd to show up at his house and offer to help him pack.

I don't think you can comment on his site, but there is an unofficial fan site at http://www.rushlimbaughforum.com/

http://www.aticketforrush.com/ (http://www.aticketforrush.com/)

They've got enough money for a ticket already.
Now they're saving up for a year's worth of Spanish lessons.

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:55:13 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
No, but we'll still have a "legacy" force left behind like we do everyotherfuckingplace we've been to.  WHY we are still in Germany, etc.

Because the Germans are kind enough to let us use their airbase?

Technically Rammstein is a NATO base, not just a US base. And other countries have "legacy" bases in former holdings as well. France and the UK being the most guilty. I was also on base for a while that housed a bunch of guys from the French Foreign Legion right here in the states. What a lovely bunch those are.

Quote from: Remington on March 23, 2010, 04:25:00 PM
http://www.aticketforrush.com/ (http://www.aticketforrush.com/)

They've got enough money for a ticket already.
Now they're saving up for a year's worth of Spanish lessons.

no fucking way.  :lol: 

Ok, :mittens: to those guys.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/rzYD/~3/OuBLK7EpZeQ/rational-rage-at-a-broken-system.html

QuoteRAGE AND HEALTH CARE 
Author:  John Robb
23 March 2010  14:53
   

Here's some fun thinking about drivers of political fragmentation and the slow failure of America.

QuoteWe expect the universe to make sense, to be consistent, and when the contingencies change we get testy. Interestingly, this is not unique to humans. In one experiment, two pigeons were placed in a cage. One of them was tethered to the back of the cage while the other was free to run about as it wished. Every 30 seconds, a hopper would provide a small amount of food (a fixed interval schedule, as described earlier). The free pigeon could reach the food but the tethered one could not, and the free pigeon happily ate all the food every time. After an hour or so of this, the hopper stops providing food. The free pigeon continues to check the hopper every 30 seconds for a while, but when it's clear that the food isn't coming, it will go to the back of the cage and beat up the other pigeon. Now, the interesting thing is that the tethered pigeon has never eaten the food and the free pigeon has no reason to think the other is responsible for the food stopping. The frustration is irrational, but real nonetheless. 
- John Hopson, a game researcher at Microsoft.

The above example illustrates the driver behind the furor over the passage of health care legislation in the US.  The trigger, or the change in the game (the economic system) that prompted the confusion and anger we see today was the 2008 financial crisis.  The inchoate anger this crisis caused is now being directed against the US government and the party in power. Here's a fuller explanation for this.

We have collectively developed the belief that the capitalist system that we work in and our system of governance, although very messy at times and often harsh, is fundamentally fair.  The financial collapse proved that these beliefs were completely unfounded and we (collectively) were fools for believing in such nonsense.  Here's how this realization rolled out, step by step.

First, the meager rewards of system (the status quo game) stopped coming:


Easy, endless debt in lieu of gains in income (for increasingly productive hard work) was either made impossible to get or converted into usurious debt.
Wealth, particularly in the form of home values/pensions/expected future earnings, evaporated.
Incomes tumbled (cut backs in hours, permanent to temp status, outsourcing, or outright termination) while prices (education to health in particular) kept accelerating.

Second, in contrast to the game depicted above (where the pigeon was first given regular rewards and then suddenly and without explanation denied those rewards), it was now generally known why our rewards for participation in the system had at first dwindled and finally stopped: our capitalist system had become so corrupt that a relatively small group of people were able to perpetrate the greatest financial theft in the history of mankind. 

The final and most damning step in this process was how that even after this theft had become public knowledge (on the front page of every newspaper from here to Timbuktu), the governmental system we expected to punish malfeasance didn't work.  Not only didn't it work by failing to punish these traitors (as those who damage a nation in the worst possible way are termed) for their acts, it actually rewarded them.  It made them rich with hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts and tens of trillions in public guarantees (to protect them against losses on their future thefts), in effect extending them a golden invitation to pillage our future again.

As the event dwindled into history, the anger didn't.  It became diffuse and festered.  Some of it eventually found a home, directed (or redirected, if you think the public is easily manipulated) against the government and the prevailing party, particularly as it pushed forward changes in the health care system.  For many the connection was that this is yet another theft, either by the health industry that wrote the bill or a government that wants to redistribute wealth via expansion of coverage. 

In the end, absent a real catharsis to purge the sense of betrayal generated by the original treasonous theft, the legitimacy of the US government will continue to sink.  Worse, all bets are off when the next financial theft occurs.  The disorder and fragmentation that will result from another event of that type will be terrible in its consequences.

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:19:37 PM

Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 02:48:23 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 23, 2010, 02:24:03 PM
However, you have to consider that the majority of people already have health insurance.  This bill doesn't affect them.  It doesn't force them to join a government-run plan, it won't drive their rates rates up (usually taken out of their paycheck before they even see it), and they won't even notice it.  It just puts more people on the Insurance Company rolls that weren't there before, and were using the Emergency Room as primary care, which does drive up costs.

This.

I for one will at least have the option to go to a real doctor as long as I don't have insurance through my workplace. Hospital costs > office costs. And they can't turn me down because I'm asthmatic.

Maybe I have a less-spitting POV on this because it's actually going to benefit me, and when I no longer need state-aided care, I don't have to worry about it anymore. Yes, I have to join a private company, but if the feds do subsidize it or I'm offered reasonable rates for reasonable care that I can afford, then the bill did it's job.

We're still a capitalist country, the insurance providers are still going to be making a buck, but now they can't be as picky about who they cover.

Exactly, Suu.  I have 2 brothers who are covered by their work policies but the out-of-pocket expenses to fund their families on same insurance plan means their wives and children GO WITHOUT.  How fucked up is that?  Now that the prices will be going down and the mandate is going through, the insurance companies will be funding those wives and children.

This also means adult children can go back on their parents' policies, so that the adult children with cancer and other huge-ass medical bills their parents are putting their houses in hock to pay for can get some assistance as well.

This bill is not perfect by a long shot, but it's better than nothing.  Period.

1. Childless adults won't be "covered" (read: forced to pay for insurance under threat of fines) until 2014.

2. Adult children will only be able to be covered on their parents' plan until they're 26, and that is provided they are still financially dependent on their parents to a degree.

IOW, this bill is mostly useless aside from the provision that forces insurance companies to stop denying pre-existing conditions.

Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 23, 2010, 06:08:41 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:19:37 PM

Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 02:48:23 PM

Quote from: LMNO on March 23, 2010, 02:24:03 PM
However, you have to consider that the majority of people already have health insurance.  This bill doesn't affect them.  It doesn't force them to join a government-run plan, it won't drive their rates rates up (usually taken out of their paycheck before they even see it), and they won't even notice it.  It just puts more people on the Insurance Company rolls that weren't there before, and were using the Emergency Room as primary care, which does drive up costs.

This.

I for one will at least have the option to go to a real doctor as long as I don't have insurance through my workplace. Hospital costs > office costs. And they can't turn me down because I'm asthmatic.

Maybe I have a less-spitting POV on this because it's actually going to benefit me, and when I no longer need state-aided care, I don't have to worry about it anymore. Yes, I have to join a private company, but if the feds do subsidize it or I'm offered reasonable rates for reasonable care that I can afford, then the bill did it's job.

We're still a capitalist country, the insurance providers are still going to be making a buck, but now they can't be as picky about who they cover.

Exactly, Suu.  I have 2 brothers who are covered by their work policies but the out-of-pocket expenses to fund their families on same insurance plan means their wives and children GO WITHOUT.  How fucked up is that?  Now that the prices will be going down and the mandate is going through, the insurance companies will be funding those wives and children.

This also means adult children can go back on their parents' policies, so that the adult children with cancer and other huge-ass medical bills their parents are putting their houses in hock to pay for can get some assistance as well.

This bill is not perfect by a long shot, but it's better than nothing.  Period.

1. Childless adults won't be "covered" (read: forced to pay for insurance under threat of fines) until 2014.

2. Adult children will only be able to be covered on their parents' plan until they're 26, and that is provided they are still financially dependent on their parents to a degree.

IOW, this bill is mostly useless aside from the provision that forces insurance companies to stop denying pre-existing conditions.

Dude, baby steps.  The democrats voting on this had blood thrown at them.  They're not used to the persecution since they built up their fucking fortresses of Perpetual Penetration in the 00's.

I'm grateful for the crumbs, I am.

I'd rather pay a fine than a $2000 ER bill I can't afford the next time I have to go in for an Asthma attack or UTI. Just sayin'.

Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 06:17:45 PM
I'd rather pay a fine than a $2000 ER bill I can't afford the next time I have to go in for an Asthma attack or UTI. Just sayin'.

I'm rather perplexed sometimes at the purist attitude over the bill...because really, no one had any hopes that it would even pass...

Oh please, a bill was always going to pass.  The only question was over the single payer/public option stuff, and even that was (as it turned out) planned in advance. 

But hey, if you wanna be grateful for crumbs, I guess that's your perogative.  On the other hand, being pissed off with a bill being bad and being willing to kill it if you don't get a better one is the basis of all political negotation.  That's how the unions got their concessions.  They made plausible threats and said what was on the table wasn't good enough.  And it paid off, for them.  If you want better than crumbs, sometimes you have to be prepared to say "fuck this" and risk going without anything at all.

Nope.  Not in my perview.  I'm one of the few that are still grateful some of the juggernaut still farts in my general direction.

I'm also not one to rest on my laurels and have hounded my legislature for what I want, not pandering to Democratic tastes, either.  I called Bilbray an asshole to his aide for not voting on S-chip.

It's ok to be pissed off, I just don't get the purism after the woe-is-me it's-so-not-gonna-go-anywhere.  That view was pretty damned popular, no matter what realist views there might have been in the interim, not THAT long ago.

Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 06:41:29 PM
But hey, if you wanna be grateful for crumbs, I guess that's your perogative

This is one of those times you sit back and let legislative creep do its job.

Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 04:26:13 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:55:13 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
No, but we'll still have a "legacy" force left behind like we do everyotherfuckingplace we've been to.  WHY we are still in Germany, etc.

Because the Germans are kind enough to let us use their airbase?

Technically Rammstein is a NATO base, not just a US base. And other countries have "legacy" bases in former holdings as well. France and the UK being the most guilty. I was also on base for a while that housed a bunch of guys from the French Foreign Legion right here in the states. What a lovely bunch those are.

Landstuhl and Kaiserslautern too.
US is pretty invested in germany.

Quote from: Z³ on March 24, 2010, 05:56:04 AM

Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 04:26:13 PM

Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 03:55:13 PM

Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 03:54:24 PM
No, but we'll still have a "legacy" force left behind like we do everyotherfuckingplace we've been to.  WHY we are still in Germany, etc.

Because the Germans are kind enough to let us use their airbase?

Technically Rammstein is a NATO base, not just a US base. And other countries have "legacy" bases in former holdings as well. France and the UK being the most guilty. I was also on base for a while that housed a bunch of guys from the French Foreign Legion right here in the states. What a lovely bunch those are.

Landstuhl and Kaiserslautern too.
US is pretty invested in germany.

I miss Germany so much.
Even if I lived in US military housing.

Wait. If I can't afford health care, I'm going to get fined?

Quote from: dimo on March 26, 2010, 06:41:47 AM
Wait. If I can't afford health care, I'm going to get fined?

IIRC the insurance mandate only takes effect on those above a certain income level.

Quote from: Remington on March 26, 2010, 06:44:54 AM

Quote from: dimo on March 26, 2010, 06:41:47 AM
Wait. If I can't afford health care, I'm going to get fined?

IIRC the insurance mandate only takes effect on those above a certain income level.

Oh, good.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/healthcare-reform.jpg (http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/healthcare-reform.jpg)

A nice graphic representation of the post-HIR bill timeline, if lacking in detail somewhat.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/a-journey-through-the-healthcare-apocalypse-with-glenn-beck (http://www.cracked.com/blog/a-journey-through-the-healthcare-apocalypse-with-glenn-beck)
Not so accurate, but very lulzy  :lulz:

Quote from: dimo on March 26, 2010, 06:59:23 AM

Quote from: Remington on March 26, 2010, 06:44:54 AM

Quote from: dimo on March 26, 2010, 06:41:47 AM
Wait. If I can't afford health care, I'm going to get fined?

IIRC the insurance mandate only takes effect on those above a certain income level.

Oh, good.

Yeah.  If you can't afford it, you will be subsidized by the Gvt.




Or, you could get a job, hippie.

How are the govt calculating the subsidy?  Because as far as I can see, there is nothing to stop the insurance companies raising their prices above current inflation levels.  In fact, they've done that for the last several years, I believe.

From politifact:


The subsidies will take effect in 2014, and are available to Americans who buy insurance on the exchange, which will be virtual marketplaces for health plans. The exchanges are designed to serve people who do not already have insurance through their employer and who are not covered by a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid.

The bill offers two kinds of subsidies to people who buy through the exchange -- one for insurance premiums and one for out-of-pocket medical costs.

Under the premium subsidy, the government will pay the difference between the premiums for a designated plan and a set percentage of your income. As for the cost-sharing subsidy, the mechanism is still evolving, but the idea is to reduce the amount that beneficiaries have to shell out for co-pays and other medical expenses.

The subsidies will operate on a sliding scale, benefiting those who earn between 133 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. At the upper end of the range of those who qualify for premium subsidies -- those earning 300 percent to 400 percent of poverty level -- the government will pay whatever amount of the premium that exceeds 9.5 percent of the beneficiary's income. (Those earning less than 133 percent of the poverty level qualify for Medicaid instead.)

Thanks.  Hmmm.  Gonna think on this some more.

I know its HuffPo, but this article seems to cover the bases pretty well (keeping in mind that it seems to be written from a perspective which dislikes the bill):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html)

Covers these topics:
Myth 1: This is a universal health care bill.
Myth 2: Insurance companies hate this bill.
Myth 3: The bill will significantly bring down insurance premiums for most Americans.
Myth 4: The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.
Myth 5: This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.
Myth 6: This bill provides health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.
Myth 7: You can keep the insurance you have if you like it.
Myth 8: The "excise tax" will encourage employers to reduce the scope of health care benefits, and they will pass the savings on to employees in the form of higher wages.
Myth 9: This bill employs nearly every cost control idea available to bring down costs.
Myth 10: The bill will require big companies like Wal-Mart to provide insurance for their employees.
Myth 11: The bill "bends the cost curve" on health care.
Myth 12: The bill will provide immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.
Myth 13: The bill prohibits dropping people in individual plans from coverage when they get sick.
Myth 14: The bill ensures consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to challenge new insurance plan decisions.
Myth 15: This bill will stop insurance companies from hiking rates 30%-40% per year.
Myth 16: When the bill passes, people will begin receiving benefits under this bill immediately
Myth 17: The bill creates a pathway for single payer.\
Myth 18: The bill will end medical bankruptcy and provide all Americans with peace of mind.

Sources at the bottom.

Lots of Democrats hate Jane Hamsher.  Put her name into the search engine on any site like Daily Kos and you'll see an amazing amount of vitriol directed her way.

Thanks for the link, btw.

YEah I noticed that... I wonder if its cause she doesn't tow the line, or if she's the Left's version of Beck?

Her site, FireDogLake, is pretty much on the left-most fringe of the Democratic Party, and while she's not my favourite writer there (Tbogg and Thers are funnier, Ian Welsh more insightful), I haven't seen anything from her outright crazy.

But admittedly I don't pay that much attention to FDL, because its 99% policy dissection wonkery.

Quote from: Cain on March 26, 2010, 03:53:16 PM
Her site, FireDogLake, is pretty much on the left-most fringe of the Democratic Party, and while she's not my favourite writer there (Tbogg and Thers are funnier, Ian Welsh more insightful), I haven't seen anything from her outright crazy.

But admittedly I don't pay that much attention to FDL, because its 99% policy wonk dissection.

Thanks for the info Cain :)

I know entirely too much about the politics of the American blogoshere.

Quote from: Cain on March 26, 2010, 04:01:55 PM
I know entirely too much about the politics of the American blogoshere.

What's even more funny is that ten years ago there WASN'T an American blogosphere.