How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Put the blame where it belongs and stop blaming the institution of government for society's problems. It's people that fuck it up.

That's great we know who to blame. How does this make our shitty government any better?

[Olo401]

Sigh.. you just don't get it. I'm not gonna bother continuing with this circular line of discussion.

Anyways, onto other things.

It should probably be mentioned at the point that the plan with the most support in Congress (there are 5-6 different bills being presented) is the public/private nonprofit co-op insurance plan. It's similar in nature to nonprofit independent (i.e. not major carrier and not state-run) insurance plans that are out there - the best example I can think of off the top of my head would be ConnectiCare. Personally I wouldn't mind going this route since it accomplishes the main goal of focusing on quality care and keeping costs down, while allowing people to opt out in favor of their own insurance or combine the two (have a slimmed-down version of the nonprofit plan to cover the basics while comprehensive private insurance covers the rest).

[Rhinox]

That's great we know who to blame. How does this make our nigger president any better?

In the end that is what it boils down to isn't it?

[Sirrus_Asura]

In the end that is what it boils down to isn't it?

[eunhye]

wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Oprah, the hollywood elite to get these people to oh say... donate a big chunk of their money/savings/investments into creating you know hospitals, doctors, medical equipment.

betcha this would be a lot easier than taking from us regular folk.

[Rhinox]

wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Oprah, the hollywood elite to get these people to oh say... donate a big chunk of their money/savings/investments into creating you know hospitals, doctors, medical equipment.

betcha this would be a lot easier than taking from us regular folk.

This isn't kosher with the GOP free market con-game. So it wouldn't get passed any more then the public option would.

[eunhye]

my bad replace those people with Exxon, Haliburton, Walmart, who else did i forget?

[The_Fall_Of_Roy]

wouldn't it be a lot easier if you could get people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Oprah, the hollywood elite to get these people to oh say... donate a big chunk of their money/savings/investments into creating you know hospitals, doctors, medical equipment.

betcha this would be a lot easier than taking from us regular folk.

This 1000x. They should, frankly I don't think its fair that they're given better treatment than the poor. What makes them so special and who put them on the pedestal they're on.

Rhinox is right though. It would never go through. GoP and Fat Cats just want to keep the money to theirselfs.

[eunhye]

also i did say "donate" ie, coerce them

[The_Fall_Of_Roy]

also i did say "donate" ie, coerce them

Fuck Donations. It doesn't work now.

[eunhye]

well you could tell them that if you donate to the creation of said hospitals/medical supplies they will further increase the livelihood of regular people who can't afford the premiums that the evil insurance companies partake in their everyday lives.

or you could just tell them they'll get a free pass from St. Peter at the Pearly Gates

[The_Fall_Of_Roy]

well you could tell them that if you donate to the creation of said hospitals/medical supplies they will further increase the livelihood of regular people who can't afford the premiums that the evil insurance companies partake in their everyday lives.

or you could just tell them they'll get a free pass from St. Peter at the Pearly Gates

It shouldn't be a choice to begin with.

[Rhinox]

They wont have to 'donate' all they have to do is point out the millions they're pumping into africa. It's more trendy to give to africans.

[guartz]

That is what I thought, didn't want to make assumptions though.

1) Two parties can be any parties so by definition the government can't be excluded from acting in the market.

well first off, how is government maintain? Taxation. How is taxation enforced? Willful donations? If tax was voluntary then it'd be a different story.

everything else you said relies on this assumption so I won't even bother.

[guartz]

They wont have to 'donate' all they have to do is point out the millions they're pumping into africa. It's more trendy to give to africans.

Funny you mention Africa. Financial aid without the industry and the market to support it would just result in hyperinflation and increased costs for the poor. Much like in Africa.

[Not not Mattaru]

well first off, how is government maintain? Taxation. How is taxation enforced? Willful donations? If tax was voluntary then it'd be a different story.

everything else you said relies on this assumption so I won't even bother.

Um. It is part of the constitution - so like taxation is enforced like other things in the constitution - by courts of law. I mean, it is as voluntary as allowing people to speak freely, you can forcefully shut people up if you want but there are consequences for doing so.

You can not pay your taxes, it just means you go to jail - so you aren't being forced it just means you are in essence breaking a contract, tacit or otherwise. A choice still exists...that is called civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a great way to try and point out injustices, its for people with strong convictions for change, you should try it sometime and you may be taken seriously.

Moreover, if you don't like tax law you can try and change it it doesn't mean you will get your way but no one is stopping you from trying.

If game theory is any indication...if tax was voluntary it wouldn't exist.

And....

No, it doesn't rely on that assumption because I never assumed otherwise. I never assumed government doesn't use tax money to function. Point out where I said otherwise - the only thing closely resembling anything like that is the whole inflation/printing money thing pages ago (which isn't even what we are talking about anymore unless you want to go back to debating the specifics of a possible healthcare reform bill....which you said you would not do so...) and doesn't have to do with taxes.



So stop skirting the major issue...which are things you have already said, I merely pointed out the fact that it leaves you two options: You are an anarchist or you are a Hypocrite (see Guartz wants to be king). I just asked you a couple questions and you went with it hook line and sinker.

[guartz]

You can not pay your taxes, it just means you go to jail - so you aren't being forced it just means you are in essence breaking a contract, tacit or otherwise.

lol <- see my example with AT&T

So stop skirting the major issue...which are things you have already said, I merely pointed out the fact that it leaves you two options: You are an anarchist or you are a Hypocrite (see Guartz wants to be king). I just asked you a couple questions and you went with it hook line and sinker.

I thought it was obvious, but yes, I am an anarchist. I'm not sure what exactly that changes? Unless you mean to imply something upon this revelation?

[Not not Mattaru]

lol <- see my example with AT&T



I thought it was obvious, but yes, I am an anarchist. I'm not sure what exactly that changes? Unless you mean to imply something upon this revelation?

1. No. It was retarded the first time.

2. Then grow some god damn nuts and stop paying your taxes; stop half-assing it. What kind of anarchist goes around nit-picking about healthcare reform on a forum instead of fighting against or their way out of the state. GG arm-chair warrior incarnate.

Not a revelation, just wanted someone to actually show that ideologues are either hypocrites or extremists, and they lack the courage in their own beliefs to go through with what they really think and stand around shouting with their dick in their hand. Thanks for playing the part.

[guartz]

So let me get this straight, when U.S government enforces tacit contracts it's legally binding, but at&t attempting the same contract is retarded?

What gives one legitimacy over the other? It's the same contract.

[Not not Mattaru]

So let me get this straight, when U.S government enforces tacit contracts it's legally binding, but at&t attempting the same contract is retarded?

What gives one legitimacy over the other? It's the same contract.

I already covered why your AT&T analogy was problematic here:

B) A point of clarification though, citizenship is not always geographic, it depends on a countries citizenship requirements - IE I can be born in a country and not be its citizen, I can live and work in another country and not be a citizen, or I can be a citizen but not a full citizen, I can hold dual citizenship etc.

Your AT&T analogy is kind of missing the point - all I would argue is that if you are in a contract with this quasi-AT&T you would have some basic things protected like the ability to petition, vote, etc. and specifics of the contract are up to a democratic process to decide and even if you don't like the result that is part of the contract as long as it doesn't violate the initial stipulations of the contract.

Your response was to focus on a different area of my post, which was fine...because it was more important.

The funny thing about back-pedaling is it doesn't get you anywhere. Now, are we in agreement that you believe in anarchy, but not enough to act on it or wut?