How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[guartz]

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

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

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.

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?

ah so if I'm not a citizen, I don't have to pay taxes. I can just stay here without problems?

What about my basic things protected, how about property? I'm not really interested in voting or petitioning. I like my stuff though. About 10 years ago somebody stole my bike, and I never got it back, even though I payed taxes. Can I sue the government and get a reimbursement? If they don't pay, does that mean they violated my contract with them?

It's not that I don't believe in anarchy enough, it's more like I don't want to be shot or dragged to a rape room.

edit: After rereading my post, I'd like to define the motive behind my simplistic questions. It's just i'm noticing a anti-conceptual mentality, as defined by ayn rand, and to quote her, the questions of " Why? and What for? are alien to an anti-conceptual mentality. "

[Ryuushin]

This 2 minute clip highlights what people really go through for health care.. not hearsay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht_W5_Ogh0U

[Beckwin]

excellent vid

[guartz]

This 2 minute clip highlights what people really go through for health care.. not hearsay

YouTube - Real Time With Bill Maher - Dana Gould reports on health care protests and Remote Area Medical

all those people in line just wanted free shit

[Not not Mattaru]

ah so if I'm not a citizen, I don't have to pay taxes. I can just stay here without problems?

What about my basic things protected, how about property? I'm not really interested in voting or petitioning. I like my stuff though. About 10 years ago somebody stole my bike, and I never got it back, even though I payed taxes. Can I sue the government and get a reimbursement? If they don't pay, does that mean they violated my contract with them?

No, I never said that. I actually said to the contrary, you would probably go to jail. Because its a law...its called civil disobedience if used correctly. I mean, you didn't see Gandhi being like lets willfully break English law as long as we don't get hit.

Assuming you are pulling out the AT&T example - if you cross a border its because you are choosing to enter a country (assuming you aren't being forced, if so good thing there is at least an embassy or Bill Clinton(?)). Entering a country has certain stipulations, like obeying their laws etc. and in general they agree to let people in who carry visas (even if it is just a stamp in a passport) - so a choice here is being made. That choice seems to be absent in your analogy which is why it is flawed.

Even if you don't like some laws etc. in a different geographical area you are still saying: "I am willing to deal with those laws because the value of my trip is greater than the possible discomfort to me of those laws". Your example is just another example of you wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

If the basic expectation is that the government is superman than sure, but I don't think it is and I think that is a poor expectation. The funny thing is, is it probably could guarantee the security of all your property it would just require them to be in every aspect of your life constantly and be a police state...so actually they don't do that because people would revolt most likely. The reason a government can't guarantee your bike won't get stolen is because the freedom relinquished to actually monitor our everyday lives is more valuable than a bike. It's a choice.

It's not that I don't believe in anarchy enough, it's more like I don't want to be shot or dragged to a rape room.

edit: After rereading my post, I'd like to define the motive behind my simplistic questions. It's just i'm noticing a anti-conceptual mentality, as defined by ayn rand, and to quote her, the questions of " Why? and What for? are alien to an anti-conceptual mentality. "

In other words: It is not that you don't believe in your beliefs, just not insofar as you would have to face any consequences for them?
That borders on bad faith as Sartre would term it. You are basically just self-victimizing yourself now.

I had to look up anti-conceptual mentality, because I haven't read Ayn Rand since high school for a reason.
To quote the woman herself: "A person of this mentality may uphold some abstract principles or profess some intellectual convictions (without remembering where or how he picked them up). But if one asks him what he means by a given idea, he will not be able to answer. If one asks him the reasons of his convictions, one will discover that his convictions are a thin, fragile film floating over a vacuum, like an oil slick in empty space -- and one will be shocked by the number of questions it had never occurred to him to ask."

Yes, I am asking simple questions to get to the bottom of the flaws in your thinking because I think they are just that "fragile film floating over a vacuum". It isn't a new concept by far, it just gives a terminology to it, it is part of the process of the Socratic method really.

[Olo401]

all those people in line just wanted free shit

No, all those people in line wanted to be healthy but can't afford to pay the ridiculous premiums charged by private insurance companies, and even if they could they still wouldn't receive treatment for their pre-existing conditions.

Cmon guartz.. If you're gonna be our #1 troll you need to have better quality material than this.

[eunhye]

Some use grant funds to buy frills : City & Region : The Buffalo News

Castro said she spent some of the $200 Tuesday at a Walmart on pencils, paper, notebooks and a dry erase board. At the same time, she saw families using their money for video games and even a television set. “The clerk who cashed me out said people were doing that all day long,” she said.

hahaha. they could've used the $200 to help pay for health insurance. but nope, video games and a tv set.

[Sirrus_Asura]

Some use grant funds to buy frills : City & Region : The Buffalo News



hahaha. they could've used the $200 to help pay for health insurance. but nope, video games and a tv set.

Safest place in the world is inside and in front of a TV. They don't need the health insurance now.

[Beckwin]

200 bucks won't even get you a month of health insurance.

if those games reduce stress at all, they're actually more beneficial for their health than attempting to spend on health insurance. whoda figured

[eunhye]

heh you know what Soros did was short term and completely propaganda. it would've been better to use that $140M imo, to help the people who don't have jobs with training skills. but i digress.



"Give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime" -Lao Tzu

[Olo401]

Some use grant funds to buy frills : City & Region : The Buffalo News

hahaha. they could've used the $200 to help pay for health insurance. but nope, video games and a tv set.

Actually, considering that the donation & matching federal funds were meant to be used for back to school supplies and clothing, I don't think using it for health insurance would be valid either. It'd certainly be more appropriate than video games, but not technically legit.

How about this for a stupid hypothetical - what if the video games were say Math Blaster or some educational shit?

[Beckwin]

heh you know what Soros did was short term and completely propaganda. it would've been better to use that $140M imo, to help the people who don't have jobs with training skills. but i digress.



"Give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime" -Lao Tzu

but if people spend money it goes to businesses and our benevolent capitalist superhero overlords who will of course grace us common folk with more jobs to work.

[Stiker]

Some use grant funds to buy frills : City & Region : The Buffalo News



hahaha. they could've used the $200 to help pay for health insurance. but nope, video games and a tv set.

And this is exactly why McCain's plan for fixing healthcare was bat-shit retarded. Every American family would get a check to "help purchase healthcare".

Now THAT is nothing more than a handout (and as can be seen, it wouldn't be used properly), yet you didn't see the McCain or Palin calling it one.

Strange.

[eunhye]

Why McCain has the best health-care plan - Mar. 11, 2008

McCain suggests that we junk all that. Say you're earning $100,000 a year and your company provides about $9,000 toward your $12,000 family premium, which is about average. Today you're taxed only on the $100,000. Under McCain's plan, you'd also pay on the $9,000. That could mean an extra $3,000 or so in federal taxes alone. To compensate for the extra levy, McCain would provide a $2,500 federal tax rebate for individuals and $5,000 per family, meaning a family would simply subtract $5,000 from its tax bill, the equivalent of a big cash payment.

Here's where it gets interesting. Employers would no longer be able to buy more health care with $9,000 of their employees' money than the workers could buy on their own. The raison d'être for corporate health benefits would vanish. Employers have another compelling reason to pass the ball to the employee: While wages are rising around 3% ayear, their health-care costs are growing at three times that rate. "I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years," says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers. Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. (Why? Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them.) So you'd have $6,000 after tax, plus the $5,000 family credit, to buy insurance. That's $11,000 in new cash that employees can set aside for health care.

this was a handout?

[guartz]

No, I never said that. I actually said to the contrary, you would probably go to jail. Because its a law...its called civil disobedience if used correctly. I mean, you didn't see Gandhi being like lets willfully break English law as long as we don't get hit.

I asked for a justification for the law, not it's consequences. Ironically, Gandhi had the same idea.

Assuming you are pulling out the AT&T example - if you cross a border its because you are choosing to enter a country (assuming you aren't being forced, if so good thing there is at least an embassy or Bill Clinton(?)). Entering a country has certain stipulations, like obeying their laws etc. and in general they agree to let people in who carry visas (even if it is just a stamp in a passport) - so a choice here is being made. That choice seems to be absent in your analogy which is why it is flawed.

In reality, what's happening is people are deciding to move, and come into contact with arbitrary legal nuisance that which is a nation's border. Why does anyone need legal representation to move across fictional lines? Unless you mean to imply that a nation and it's borders is actually private land owned by flesh and blood men? Then i'd argue which men? Who specifically owns that land? No such distinctions are made, it's merely enough that few men in charge to use a self binding contract, whom nobody needs to explicitly agree to, to set up armed regulation and control of roadways and territory. Their only weight of legitimacy comes from monopoly on violence. They have the biggest guns.

Even if you don't like some laws etc. in a different geographical area you are still saying: "I am willing to deal with those laws because the value of my trip is greater than the possible discomfort to me of those laws". Your example is just another example of you wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Obviously what you say is true, otherwise people wouldn't move to anywhere. How an individuals motivation to cross fictional lines gives any justification to government authority is beyond guessing at this point. Hey I tell you what, I'm gonna start swinging my fists, and if you get in the way, then hell, it was your choice to get punched. Therefore, I'm the king.

If the basic expectation is that the government is superman than sure, but I don't think it is and I think that is a poor expectation. The funny thing is, is it probably could guarantee the security of all your property it would just require them to be in every aspect of your life constantly and be a police state...so actually they don't do that because people would revolt most likely. The reason a government can't guarantee your bike won't get stolen is because the freedom relinquished to actually monitor our everyday lives is more valuable than a bike. It's a choice.

This "choice" completely destroys any concept of self-ownership, that is to say, this implies another entity has higher claim on you then you do. This is basically fraud.

Let me explain it a bit further, since I'm almost positive you never considered it in depth. People own themselves, they own the product of their labor, which in turn means they own their property. This property can be exchanged voluntarily with another person, and this is great, because both individuals are better off, otherwise they wouldn't exchange. However, people can take property through fraud and theft as well. This is called initiation of force, since it's not a willful exchange or a willful exchange did not take place.

A person can ask for protection, of course, this is another example of willful exchange, since the people protecting the property are either compensated or they provide their services as a gift, either a compassionate charity or they act on moral imperative. of course if a fee is required, both parties must agree upon it, otherwise it turns into extortion. In other words, it becomes initiation of force.

Now, the idea that politicians have the right to extort taxes for the protection of property is exactly like saying that said politicians have a claim on you or your property without the need of willful exchange. And democracy doesn't change that fact, even if the politician is elected, he is still a man, chosen by other men. And no man can transfer rights he himself does not have.

So when you say, it's a choice. what you rely imply is that it's a choice between two parties stealing a little or one party stealing a lot.

In other words: It is not that you don't believe in your beliefs, just not insofar as you would have to face any consequences for them?
That borders on bad faith as Sartre would term it. You are basically just self-victimizing yourself now.

Well, there is 'any' consequences, and then there is being shot or jailed. So if you are suggesting that my moral views carry no weight since I'm not willing to become a martyr, there is an organization in Afghanistan I'd like to introduce to you.

I had to look up anti-conceptual mentality, because I haven't read Ayn Rand since high school for a reason.
To quote the woman herself: "A person of this mentality may uphold some abstract principles or profess some intellectual convictions (without remembering where or how he picked them up). But if one asks him what he means by a given idea, he will not be able to answer. If one asks him the reasons of his convictions, one will discover that his convictions are a thin, fragile film floating over a vacuum, like an oil slick in empty space -- and one will be shocked by the number of questions it had never occurred to him to ask."

Yes, I am asking simple questions to get to the bottom of the flaws in your thinking because I think they are just that "fragile film floating over a vacuum". It isn't a new concept by far, it just gives a terminology to it, it is part of the process of the Socratic method really.

Never has "No, U" been said in so many words.

[guartz]

No, all those people in line wanted to be healthy but can't afford to pay the ridiculous premiums charged by private insurance companies, and even if they could they still wouldn't receive treatment for their pre-existing conditions.

Cmon guartz.. If you're gonna be our #1 troll you need to have better quality material than this.

Oh that's right Olo. The noble doctors want to treat people, but the evil and mean insurance companies just charge too much! Oh what to do!

Maybe we should abolish insurance companies. Then you know, people can just use their visas and mastercards to pay doctors.

I just don't understand why the hell you people insist on blaming insurance companies. I just don't fucking get it.

Listen, if there was an insurance company that did insurance for no profit, guess what? It wouldn't be an insurance company, it'd be a fucking charity. Jesus H christ, and guess what else? most of these fucktards still couldn't afford a profit-free insurance anyway.

Hell, even if health insurance cost 10 bucks a month, there would still be a fucking line there.

ARRRRGGHGHGHGHG
*smash head on keyboard*

[archibaldcrane]

Why McCain has the best health-care plan - Mar. 11, 2008



this was a handout?

My company pays $0 a year towards my health care - how does this help me again?

[Olo401]

I just don't understand why the hell you people insist on blaming insurance companies. I just don't fucking get it.

Let me say it once again. Maybe you'll actually READ this time.

(warning - Olo's about to use an objectivist/libertarian argument. run for the hills!)

Because they're THE PROBLEM. They set the price of health care in our system, because they're telling doctors what a doctor should be charging a patient for their work. And on top of it, they're also ever-more-frequently refusing to pay doctors for their work, even when someone has paid for the insurance company's money-holding services for YEARS. They profit excessively, far beyond the point of usury, and they do nothing but collect money from us.

It should be the other way - doctors tell the insurance company how much their work is worth, and the insurance companies pay the doctor from the premiums that we pay. They make enough profit from the goddamn interest that they collect while the money we all pay goes into their bank accounts.

[guartz]

Let me say it once again. Maybe you'll actually READ this time.

(warning - Olo's about to use an objectivist/libertarian argument. run for the hills!)

Because they're THE PROBLEM. They set the price of health care in our system, because they're telling doctors what a doctor should be charging a patient for their work. And on top of it, they're also ever-more-frequently refusing to pay doctors for their work, even when someone has paid for the insurance company's money-holding services for YEARS. They profit excessively, far beyond the point of usury, and they do nothing but collect money from us.

It should be the other way - doctors tell the insurance company how much their work is worth, and the insurance companies pay the doctor from the premiums that we pay. They make enough profit from the goddamn interest that they collect while the money we all pay goes into their bank accounts.

complete bullshit. From beginning to the end.

[Olo401]

complete bullshit. From beginning to the end.

Then you know ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING about how the health care system works in this country.