US Lawmakers Eyeing National ID Card

According to Wired (and no big surprise, considering the practicalities of implementing massive changes in medical finance), US lawmakers "are proposing a national identification card, a 'fraud-proof' Social Security card required for lawful employment in the United States. The proposal comes as the Department of Homeland Security is moving toward nationalizing driver licenses."

Comments

And what's the problem here?

[LostCluster]

I'm not sure why Slashdot is so afraid of this. You don't have a right to be anonymous to your employer. You don't have a right to avoid taxes. You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants? We already drive around with standardized (yet customizable non-materially) license plates on our cars. You already need proof of government permission and proof somebody's going to pay if you hit something to drive a car. You aren't supposed to be able to get on a plane anonymously...

Let's not think of the things we'd be able to get away with with a fake id... and start thinking how we can make sure somebody else can't fake their ID for our mutual protection.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[tthomas48]

"You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?"

That's actually a bizarre statement. The options are:

1) Illegal immigrants can pay for health care in the open market (potentially taxpayer subsidized).
2) We can pay for illegal immigrants to go to hospitals as indigent care (definitely taxpayer subsidized).

I don't really understand why people would go for #2. If I can choose 100% loss vs. even 95% loss, I'm going to go with the 95%.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[couchslug]

The price of protecting exclusivity is restricting access to America. De-facto open borders mean the only way to deter invasion from the failed narco-states (which US policy helped wreck!) to our south is to deter employment of non-citizens.

Americans indicate by their behaviors that they want a welfare state. Making that practical means restricting who gets the goodies, and pitting citizens against illegals is inevitable.

As a citizen, I don't care about foreigners and favor chasing those who won't obey the law back where they came from. It's me or them, a binary choice. This being MY country and MY birthright, fuck them.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure why Slashdot is so afraid of this. You don't have a right to be anonymous to your employer. You don't have a right to avoid taxes. You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?

Why? Because we've already gone through this with the social security number, which was promised to be only used to administer social security benefits, and is now used for everything.

We don't want any more stinking ID!!!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[LostCluster]

American health insurers make it very clear that the only service they'll provide for you in Canada is medical transport back to the USA. They won't pay the out-of-country rate for Canadian healthcare.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[dgatwood]

The problem is that the day the U.S. Government successfully make anything fraud-proof is the day a (suidae) sus domestica obtains an aviation license.

Unfortunately, being the U.S. Government, they will no doubt pull the same sort of stupidity that made social security numbers a nightmare---specifically, treating this new token as an unforgeable piece of information, thus ensuring that anything verified with this identifier is not subject to scrutiny or correction even when fraud has clearly occurred.

Basically, to them, "fraud-proof" just means "good enough that we can ignore the problems without the peasants revolting".

Re:And what's the problem here?

[rubycodez]

We're afraid of our continuing slide into a police state, and of giving the idiots who mismanage our country the further power to deny us employment or driving at a whim or for clerical error. That driver's license permission you speak of is at the state level, and moreover it works to get on a plane.

Look at how the federal government has already mismanaged and abused things with the No-Fly list, the stupidity of relying on a mere name which dozens or hundreds or thousands of other people have to determine if someone can fly or if they'll be hassled for hours at an airport. Enough already, they can't function in a competent manner with what they have, why give them even more ways to screw with our lives.

And by the way, we were NOT given the "right to health care". Something that is taken by threat of force from one person to give to another is never a "right". If it costs me money for someone else to have it is not a right.

The truth is that plenty of U.S. slashdotters who championed the success of moderate amounts of socialism in California and of healthcare and other social services in Europe are conveniently neglecting the reality that California is bankrupt and that all of the European countries are either bankrupt or soon to be.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[nido]

You don't have a right to avoid taxes.

Actually, you (and everyone else, for that matter) has the right and the responsibility to avoid paying as many taxes as you can. Tax evasion is another matter, however.

Wikipedia has an article:

Tax avoidance is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage, to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. By contrast, tax evasion is the general term for efforts to not pay taxes by illegal means. The term tax mitigation is a synonym for tax avoidance. Its original use was by tax advisors as an alternative to the pejorative term tax avoidance. Latterly the term has also been used in the tax regulations of some jurisdictions to distinguish tax avoidance foreseen by the legislators from tax avoidance which exploits loopholes in the law.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance_and_tax_evasion

Re:And what's the problem here?

[0xdeadbeef]

which was promised to be only used to administer social security benefits

And now they can finally make good on that promise.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[clampolo]

I'm not sure why Slashdot is so afraid of this. You don't have a right to be anonymous to your employer. You don't have a right to avoid taxes. You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?

Because it is pretty obvious that has nothing to do with illegals. If they wanted to get rid of illegals it would be a very simple matter to do it. Previous presidents had no problem with it. Then, starting in the Reagan years it was decided to stop enforcing immigration so that cheap labor could stream in. Of course back in 1986 when we had our first amnesty (I say first since both parties want a second one so it will probably happen,) we were told that after that there would be strict enforcement. I'm sure that after this card we will get another empty promise of strict enforcement.

This crap is to make it easier to track people and make it harder to avoid the government knowing everything about you.

Furthermore, just like any other required documentation it will turn into another useless nightmare for citizens. Before going you will need to scrounge up 100 documents and pictures, etc. Then you will need to make an appointment. Then you will have to pay some ludicrous processing fee. Then take a day off work to stand in line for a day and deal with some fat government slob, etc. Then wait an entire month to get the stupid thing (which means you won't be able to travel/get a job/drive/etc while you wait for a stinking month for them to make a laminated card.) And then God knows how many months it will take for those clowns to process a change of address/etc.

The PITA of a driver's license and a social security card should be enough to scare the living crap out of anyone with half a brain from wanting a national id card.

Let's not think of the things we'd be able to get away with with a fake id

Yeah, having social security cards sure did make everything safer. Noone uses that to fake someone's identity

Re:And what's the problem here?

[medge_42]

I've had this talk with a number of people. They argue that if you have nothing to hide why hide?
Well, what if they make something illegal that is a basic right.
What if alcohol was illegal?
What if being homosexual was illegal?
What if being black meant you were not allowed to vote?
What if being female meant you were not allowed to vote?
But your right, it's not like the US has a precedent of have laws like that.

All crimes are committed by the living, therefore living is a crime (Judge Death, 2000AD)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[MichaelSmith]

It depends on what they mean. If you need ID to open a bank account then fair enough. If you need ID to walk down the street or breathe the air then no thanks.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[twoHats]

Had you been alive in the 50s you would know that one of the hallmarks of a totalitarian state is the possession of "Papers". May i see you papers please? When i cam home from the military a cop asked to see my ID, and when i said i had none with me, he told me i could be arrested. We argued and i won (you could do that back then). One of the reasons I was in the army was to keep the USA from becoming Stalinist or a Nazi state. is that enough you scared little weasle - do we have to give up ALL rights b4 you security freaks will be happy? No, you will never feel secure, even long affter they are all gone!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Culture20]

You don't have a right to be anonymous to your employer.

Actually, you do. Your employer also has the right not to hire you if you're anonymous or to fire you if he finds out you're not who you say you are. But no one is going to arrest you because you worked for someone who didn't know your real name.
Now taxes, on the other hand will be a pain if you're not up front with your employer. As long as you don't mind being audited annually, it's no different than working for yourself as a contractor to your employer, except your employer is withholding taxes for your alias.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Wyatt Earp]

Sorry but the license plates in the US are not standardized beyond a size and ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_license_plate_designs_and_serial_formats

I've had vehicles registered in South Dakota, Oregon, Washington and Alaska.

Alaska - Embossed serial reflective sheeting with three letters and three numbers - ABC123

Oregon - Embossed serial reflective sheeting with three numbers, a space and three letters - 123 ABC

South Dakota - Screened serial reflective sheeting with 1-9 two letters, a space and three numbers. The 1-10 are county by size. 10-66 one letter, a space and three numbers. The 10-64 are county by alphabetical, 65-66 are unorganized counties (Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations).

Washington - Embossed serial reflective sheeting with three numbers, a dash and three letters or three letters and four numbers

Re:And what's the problem here?

[clarkkent09]

Hmm, so what you are saying "we already have some IDs and use them for some things" THEREFORE "we need more IDs and we need to use them for more things". Great argument. Mods, congratulations, you win an "Ignorant Tool of the Day" award for modding that up.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[squidfood]

This being MY country and MY birthright, fuck them.

So which boat did your ancestors come in on?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DavidShor]

"If it costs me money for someone else to have it is not a right."

.

It costs money to pay police officers to make sure people can't rob your house and kill your kids. The money to pay for these officers was taken by force from other people. Are you going that you don't have a fundamental right not to be killed by random strangers? Some of these tax-payers had enough money to defend themselves with private security forces, why should their money be stolen just to pay for your "security"? Socialism!!!

All rights cost something, that's the point.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Okian Warrior]

The basic problem with this and many similar measures is not that people disagree with the *intent* of the changes, they disagree that there is a connection between the intent and the action.

Having IDs which are harder to fake is probably a good thing. Fake IDs are the source of much fraud, and fraud is a big problem. Let's do something about it.

Now ask yourself the following question: Would you support this measure if it cost money and made IDs easier to fake?

See Bruce Schneier for a thoughtful analysis.

Here, let me quote from that article:

[The National ID card system] won't work. It won't make us more secure.

In fact, everything I've learned about security over the last 20 years tells me that once it is put in place, a national ID card program will actually make us less secure.

Whenever anything like this comes up we keep asking the wrong questions. "We should ban liquids to make us safer", "we need to take naked pictures of all airline passengers to make us safe", "we should let border guards rifle through everyone's PCs to make us safe".

Everyone wants to be safe, there's absolutely no doubt about that, we should be in favor of all these measures.

But do you support expensive naked-photo camera systems if they make us *less* safe? Again, thoughtful commentary from people who have to actually make a living at this sort of thing is instructive.

Stop distracting us with the intent and convince us of the effectiveness.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[stonewallred]

Not a fan of government IDs, but I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[rickb928]

"You just got the right to healthcare"

No, we just got the bill.

Granting rights in the U.S. takes more than an Act of Congress.

This misunderstanding is at the root of many of the problems our nation is experiencing, and will yet be the cause of the Second Revolution. Watch and learn.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Colin Smith]

The truth is that plenty of U.S. slashdotters who championed the success of moderate amounts of socialism in California and of healthcare and other social services in Europe are conveniently neglecting the reality that California is bankrupt and that all of the European countries are either bankrupt or soon to be.

All countries using a monetary system based on fractional reserve banking are bankrupt, or soon to be.
 

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Obfuscant]

You just got the right to healthcare,

No, "we" didn't. We got the responsibility for the people who pay taxes to pay for other people's healthcare. The difference is that the government doesn't create rights, they can only infringe upon the rights we already have, and create "entitlement programs" that some people mistake for rights because other people have to pay for them.

That's the problem.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[subsonic]

I would only support this if it means that I don't have to put with BS like full-body pat downs and long lines at airports, faster processing whenever I go to a government office (DMV, Post Office, courthouse) and maybe (somewhere down the line) if it could be used to reference my medical history. If it is truly a national database, it should lend to more efficient business in my day to day life. If you explain this way that makes it a benefit to have and use in a positive sense (besides, no illegals taking your dishwashing jobs) more people would get on board.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ffreeloader]

And now they can finally make good on that promise.

Bullshit. They'll make this an RFID card and the cards will be hacked within a week or so of being released. When everything was just starting to be computerized the argument put forward was that it would stop all fraud.

Yeah, like that really happened, and no RFID card is going to stop all Medicare, income tax, etc... fraud. It will probably make it worse, as that's been the trend so far with each promise of technological advancement being trumpeted as the "fraud-ender".

Re:And what's the problem here?

[theaveng]

If I find a person in my home without my permission (i.e. an intruder), I'm going to warn him to leave voluntarily. If he refuses then he will eat a bullet.

I see no reason to treat intruders from Mexico or Canada or any part of the World differently - Leave voluntarily or face the consequences. Perhaps not shoot them dead, but they should definitely be escorted out of my country, handed a Visa application, and told not to return until they receive permission.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[flyneye]

Well first, being anonymous to an employer would confuse the issue when making out paychecks, thats a granted.
Second, you do have the right to avoid taxes, else H&R Block would just be filling out the same form for everyone. Hell, you have the right to protest taxes, cheat on taxes and just outright not pay taxes.
Healthcare is still in the holding pen, and we don't have it.
You don't have to have a license plate or pay state taxes on a vehicle either.(you just can't drive on state highways without one.)
All in all, the only authority is the authority you acknowledge. Living without permission is difficult , but doable.
Now quit propagating already too-popular-myths and tell your chosen authorities where to stick their i.d. card. and call homeland insecurity and social insecurity as one would call a spade , a spade.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[LostCluster]

Within MA, there's about a dozen different varieties of "charity plates" where people pay a surcharge that is donated to the choice charity of the owners of a logo, such as a sports team or other group.

But, since they all use the same raised lettering, they're machine readable just like any other plate.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[HungryHobo]

And that's exactly what the real native true blooded americans should have done when your ancestors waltzed on in pretending they had some kind of a right to be there.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[The Shootist]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[techno-vampire]

This being MY country and MY birthright, fuck them.

And what, pray tell, have you done for your country, or have you just spent your life asking what your country can do for you?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

To be fair, if his ancestors came on a boat, they probably immigrated legally. Yes, I know you're trying to point out that it is a country of immigrants, but frankly, if everyone who wanted to come to the U.S. did come to the U.S., the whole thing would fall apart. Over a hundred years ago, it was difficult to get here, so we didn't really need quotas; if you were able to make the trip, we had room. Even from Mexico it was hard; the north of the country is a desert, and before cars were available, that was a damn difficult trip. Nowadays, it's really easy to get here (particularly from Latin America); while we still have room, we can't take everyone at once. Acknowledging that we need to establish a system for limited immigration that can be absorbed without causing problems isn't purely xenophobic (even if that is the primary motivation for much of the anti-immigrant movement); if we don't enforce the rules of said system then there is no system, and we end up experiencing all the problems the system is supposed to mitigate. We already have an issue where low and unskilled work doesn't pay enough to support a family; fifty years ago it could (hell, one low skill job could support a family, nowadays two low skilled jobs often aren't enough). Some of that is due to business friendly politicians, some of it is due to competition from immigrants. If we only had legal immigrants competing for the jobs, wages would not have fallen as steeply, simply because there would be 10 million or so less workers available to do the work.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[rolfwind]

I'm not sure why Slashdot is so afraid of this. You don't have a right to be anonymous to your employer. You don't have a right to avoid taxes. You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?

Healthcare already goes to illegals, hospitals can't turn a person away, especially if they call 911 and arrive by ambulance. A card won't change that policy.

We already drive around with standardized (yet customizable non-materially) license plates on our cars. You already need proof of government permission and proof somebody's going to pay if you hit something to drive a car.

While traveling is a right, driving is something you choose to exercise. If you don't drive, you don't need a license.

Can you choose not to exist as to avoid this card?

You aren't supposed to be able to get on a plane anonymously...

Last I heard, you could, but you would have to show up early to get the full pat down and they would try to dissaude such behavior. It might have changed in the meantime.

Let's not think of the things we'd be able to get away with with a fake id... and start thinking how we can make sure somebody else can't fake their ID for our mutual protection.

I have a problem with this attituted, "be able to get away with a fake id". You're automatic assumption is that someone with ID is the norm and anybody without ID is suspicious.

I had a friend in Europe who lock himself out of his house once, he was just going to the local store to get a drink. As he was climbing into the window, police stopped him and asked for ID. He explained his situation, they checked the name on the house with his story and other things, and helped him in with the condition that he had to provide ID once inside. He did that, and before they left, they ticketed him a fine for not having ID (at first). I don't want to live like that.

As far as I know, reaffirmed by the Hiibel case, when police ask, you do have to identify yourself but you don't need ID.

And I'm not confident in the government's ability to make a unfakeable ID.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Angst Badger]

Why? Because we've already gone through this with the social security number, which was promised to be only used to administer social security benefits, and is now used for everything.

True enough. As far as I can tell, though, I have yet to be seriously harmed by my SSN. The data security provisions of my bank might be another matter, but my SSN is no more harmful to me than my name, my phone number, my dedicated IP address, or the primary keys assigned to me in any of hundreds of databases. I'm certainly not going to wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat thinking, "Oh shit! I've been assigned another number!"

We don't want any more stinking ID!!!

Meh. Doesn't even rank in the top hundred things that worry me about the government. Any number of both free and unfree countries have such things, and like gun ownership, to which the same applies, there's not much correlation between that and the local degree of personal freedom. And frankly, I'd rather not have my tax dollars going to paying for the errors and duplication of effort that come from not having a single, reliable personal ID.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, I'll be sure to let Germany know that they're about to go bankrupt. They'll be pretty surprised what with their economy kicking ours' ass, but I'm sure they'll see the writing on the wall when I tell em rubycodez said so.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[LostCluster]

No, I'm saying we have flawed systems for ID that are too easily faked out... so we need a geekily-secured ID system in its place.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[theaveng]

Good thing I pay cash then. It makes me my own boss, 100% free, and I don't have to listen to insurance bureaucrats or government politicians.

(somebody whispers) "They passed the Pelosicare bill."

Like I said I am still mostly free. I don't have to listen to insurance bureaucrats because I pay cash. I deal directly with my doctor.

somebody whispers): "Insurance is now mandatory."

Ahhhh sh

*#)&%!(%&
NO CARRIER

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Sponge Bath]

Require citizenship checks for access to health care of all kinds...

So under your plan a French national on vacation in the US who experiences a serious injury will be told to just hurry up and die?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Gonoff]

California does not look remotely socialist from here (UK). It does not even look particularly middle of the road. Do you feel this because those nasty people make the rich pay more tax?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[theaveng]

The country was empty when my ancestors arrived with only 20 states in existence.

Now it's full. In fact I dare say it's overpopulated, since we're wallowing in our own pollution. When oil rises above $200 a barrel in the 2020s, making food scarce and energy expensive, we won't be able to sustain our 310 million persons. We should be seeking to SHRINK the population (block immigration) not increase it. (Same applies to the EU.)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[squidfood]

Mine came here LEGALLY. Know and understand the distinction...

I got a fistful of broken treaties with those who walked over that says "legal" is a stack of BS post-justification written by the occupiers. Just sayin'.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

Despite what you learn from fables in grade school, rights come from society. You have a right to life- but that right won't stop a bullet. You have a right to free speech- but that won't stop a bullet, or a broken jaw. Rights are an ephermal idea with no basis in nature. The only natural "rights" are the laws of physics. Rights only have any force when society organizes itself in such a way as to enable enforcement of them. The way it does so is via a government. Which does put government in an interesting dual position- its job is to enforce the rights of all, but its great power makes it possible for it to be a horrible violator of them as well. That's why it requires constant citizen oversight and correctional systems.

That also means what your rights are is a reflection of what society decides they should be. This list can expand or contract over time. For example, progressives believe that the right to life must include a right to health (or at least health care, which is as close as humans can come to a right to health) or else proclaiming such a right is meaningless rhetoric. And it looks like we just won that one. Sixty years ago blacks didn't have the right to go to a white school, only the lunatic fringe would argue against that now. 200 years ago you had the right to own the most powerful weapon of the day, I doubt many people would argue for the right of a private citizen to own a nuke now. Yet many people do argue for a right to own lesser weapons (guns), and society has mostly agreed on that. Seventy years ago you didn't have Miranda rights, now you do and have a right to be informed of them. Rights change over time, as society dictates. Nothing will change that, all you can do is argue for those that you truely believe to be important, such as free speech, be preserved or added.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[H0D_G]

WTF? How did that get modded insightful?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

You really ought to learn to argue this in a way that doesn't reek of xenophobia. There *are* legitimate criticisms of uncontrolled immigration, but when you argue it on the basis of "I've got mine" you turn people off. Immigration is still useful; this country, like most countries, is a Ponzi scheme of a sort. Without immigration our population would contract and the whole scheme would collapse. Limited, legal immigration maintains the necessary population growth while allowing time for services and infrastructure to expand to support the additional load. Unlimited immigration could mean overwhelming the existing systems before they have time to adapt. Striking a balance is important, but your xenophobia causes knee jerk opposition to your argument.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Chris Burke]

Mine came here LEGALLY.

Are you sure? Do you have the papers? A LOT of Europeans came over here illegally. They did, of course, claim to have done so legally.

Of course for all I know you're 2nd generation and your folks have their naturalization papers framed on their wall. But maybe consider that it isn't so clear for many of the folks with your attitude.

the Industrial Revolution is fucking OVER and we don't need vast amounts of unskilled labor to work in mills and factories long since dead.

Just plain industry is over in this country. The Revolution sure isn't, at least not in the sense that we don't need industry anymore. We do need it, and if we had what we needed then we would need the labor. But we fucked ourselves by shipping all the industry overseas and immigrants hah nothing to do with it.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

If I find a person in my home without my permission (i.e. an intruder), I'm going to warn him to leave voluntarily. If he refuses then he will eat a bullet

And unless he was threatening you with a weapon, you'll be tried, found guilty, and executed for murder as you deserve.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[smashin234]

Yes, we do not like the French here, didn't you hear? They just hold up white flags and yell weird mutterings at us, no real sport there to be honest. Long live the Freedom Fry.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Capt_Morgan]

More Pseudo-intellectual blather attempting to justify sociopathic and immoral behavior

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AHuxley]

5) Give them access so they don't infect their bosses?
Disposable, skilled, interchangeable, union free, tax paying low cost labor does come with a few basic maintenance costs.
But the costs are picked up by the state and per visit payments are injected back into the private hospital system?
The other options are robots or a guest worker system.
Robots are expensive and need US techs to service and certify.
Guest workers are less disposable, interchangeable and tend to have rights, protections and real contracts.
On paper the system you have now is the win for the US elite.
If you have a job and no ID your out of view, if you get caught without papers whats the ID card going to do?
The only reason you want an ID card is to track the mainstream US population.
If the US gov wanted to deal with the 'human slavery" side - treat the bosses like drug dealers, you lose it all in forfeiture cases.
As this is not happening, its all ok :)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[vishbar]

What?!?! We have the highest per capita healthcare costs in the world!. Yes, higher than Germany, UK, Canada, and all the other "socialist" European countries.

Geez, educate yourself before you make a comment. It bothers the hell out of me when I see one of my fellow countrymen spewing out utter nonsense about foreign healthcare.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

That works great when you're worried about the sniffles, an ear infection, and maybe a broken arm. Then when you get cancer you're fucked- unless you're in the top 2% or so of wage earners you're either going bankrupt or dieing. Because insurance sure as hell isn't going to pick you up, and you won't be able to afford hundreds of thousands in medical bills. It will fail miserably as you get older and require hundreds of dollars a month in medicine as well. Of course you can not take those medicines, but you'll lose decades of your life. And since we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this country why should being poor mean you have to die decades younger? Seems to violate 2 out of the 3 right there.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[danhm]

Furthermore, just like any other required documentation it will turn into another useless nightmare for citizens. Before going you will need to scrounge up 100 documents and pictures, etc. Then you will need to make an appointment. Then you will have to pay some ludicrous processing fee. Then take a day off work to stand in line for a day and deal with some fat government slob, etc. Then wait an entire month to get the stupid thing (which means you won't be able to travel/get a job/drive/etc while you wait for a stinking month for them to make a laminated card.) And then God knows how many months it will take for those clowns to process a change of address/etc. The PITA of a driver's license and a social security card should be enough to scare the living crap out of anyone with half a brain from wanting a national id card.

What sort of hell do you live in, friend? Here in Massachusetts the process to get a driver's license is painless: bring a few documents you already have and should keep well-filed (a paystub or bank statement, a passport or other state ID, that sort of stuff) to your local Registry of Motor Vehicles office, hit a few buttons on the automated kiosk, wait a few minutes in the chairs the provide and fill out the form if you haven't done so already, go up when they call your number, hand your stuff over, get a temporary ID. You'll get your real one in about week. I did this in November of last year; it took a total of 15 minutes. You can travel and get a job with your pre-existing documents and the temporary ID you get is for driving. What's the problem? If my state can figure out how a deli works, why can't others?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

The data security provisions of my bank might be another matter, but my SSN is no more harmful to me than my name, my phone number, my dedicated IP address, or the primary keys assigned to me in any of hundreds of databases.

So thieves you can use your IP address to sign up for credit cards and government benefits under your name? I would assume that is an extension to IPv6 I haven't heard about yet. NEATO!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[clarkkent09]

No but falling back on name calling when your arguments fail you IS sociopathic and immoral behavior.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[WindBourne]

Actually, illegal immigration were partially responsible for this. In particular, business have 2 ways to lower costs.

1. Lower your labor costs.
2. Lower your labor time.

These both compete against each other. One approach to lower the labor costs was done via illegals. And yes, it was illegal to do so. The other approach to lowering it is to send the work to places not long with lower labor costs, but that will fix their money to being artificially lower and will subsidize the work.

The other approach is to automate it. That is what the west, esp. America USED to do. Sadly, over the last decade, congress and the admin pushed tax laws to help ship jobs elsewhere, while the rest simply ignored companies hiring illegals.

If Obama takes action dealing with illegals AS WELL AS dealing with China's illegal actions and other nations that fix their money to ours, then perhaps we will get back our manufacturing.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[theaveng]

Police are part of the general welfare which *everyone* benefits from, therefore everyone shares the bill. Same with mail service or an army.

Buying Fat Dave a new car (think "cash for clunkers") is *specific* welfare, and only benefits Dave. Therefore the burden should be shouldered by Dave alone, not be his neighbors. ----- It's also worth noting that no place was Congress ever granted the power to buy cars (or in 1700s parlance: wagons) for people. Such a power, if it exists at all, is reserved to the State government by our 9th and 10th amendment rights.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[nurb432]

And this my friends, is how we lose our freedom and turn into a socialist ( or fascist ) society. People like you hand it to them on a silver platter, and to be honest, you disgust me.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DavidShor]

The distinction is arbitrary. Why should I have the right to declare that *nobody* can ever step on my property, even when I'm not there? And why should the state enforce this claim? Doesn't that infringe on other people's liberty to go through your lawn?

.

The answer, of course, comes down to a utilitarian argument: That communal property often leads to Tragedy of Commons situations, and so most people are better off in a society with strong property "rights" then one without one. But this has nothing to do with "liberty". It's a technocratic calculation, and one that can be subject to disagreement(Property rights are not always a good thing! There's we don't give people the right to declare no-fly zones...) It's in exactly the same class of decisions as whether or not people should be given universal health care or protected from starvation.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Obfuscant]

Despite what you learn from fables in grade school, rights come from society.

That's the fable. Any "right" that comes from society can be taken back, and that means it certainly isn't a right.

Rights require recognition from society, but that's not where they come from. Yes, people can violate your rights, but the fact that they don't violate them doesn't mean they are the source.

Rights change over time, as society dictates.

Then they aren't rights, they are privileges.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[pentalive]

Or even "We have some IDs and mostly they are used for different things" therefor we need "one ID that is used for everything including full reporting on any purchase even with cash over $5.32"

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ptbarnett]

And unless he was threatening you with a weapon, you'll be tried, found guilty, and executed for murder as you deserve.

Maybe in your state, but not in mine.

There are several states in the US in which an intruder in a habitation is presumed to have hostile intent, regardless of whether he is threatening you or has a weapon.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[shadowbearer]

The truth is that plenty of U.S. slashdotters who championed the success of moderate amounts of socialism in California and of healthcare and other social services in Europe are conveniently neglecting the reality that California is bankrupt and that all of the European countries are either bankrupt or soon to be.

  Which may be true or not wrt Europe, I don't know enough to call you on that (and I doubt anyone does) but California's fiscal problems haven't been caused solely by overspending on health care.

  But I will ask you: is it nationalized health care that is going to bankrupt them? Or is it just plain corruption and bad management of fiscal resources?

  Citation, please?

    In any case, I suspect that any government that doesn't ensure that it's citizens have access to affordable health care in our modern times will last very long. The technology to do so is here; it's access to it that's the problem. If that problem is not dealt with on a more global level, soon, then the western/first world countries will soon have a lot worse problems to deal with.

SB

Re:And what's the problem here?

[theaveng]

Then when you get cancer you're fucked-

HINT:

We're ALL fucked.
We're ALL going to be wormfood.
What difference does it make if you die of cancer at age 80, or like my grandma, get chemo and postpone the cancer until age 84. In the end, we're all fucked.

Why don't people get this? Are they in denial?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[gknoy]

I can't help wondering if this ID will operate similar to an EZpass which can be tracked everywhere you go. Granted the "receivers" right now are only limited to toll roads, but once everyone has an ID they can make those receivers ubiquitous, like cameras are inside cities.

Get a wallet that has a built in metal mesh, effectively putting your RFID device in a portable faraday cage. Viola, no ez-pass style tracking of YOUR identification. (Of course, some would say that they'd robably just track your car tires, or your cellular phone.)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Chris Burke]

Um, by that explanation, being able to hire cheap immigrant labor in this country was the only thing that partially mitigated the tide of manufacturing moving overseas. Without that, the only source of cheap labor would have been overseas. So they either use immigrants, or the factor itself has to emigrate.

You are fundamentally right in one respect though: The only way to get our manufacturing back is to remove the incentives for companies to manufacture overseas in places like China.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[clarkkent09]

irresponsible and disabled adults (people who founded the country generally just let them die)

No they didn't. If disabled people were allowed to die without anyone helping them, then that was the fault of the their families, neighbors and generally people around them who weren't generous enough to help their fellow citizens in need. It is not one of the responsibilities of government to help them.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

Okay, it's not a particularly widespread issue in darkest Canada. But it's a scourge for hospitals close to the boarder.

Isn't that like 90% of them? Almost all Canadian cities appear to be within a close drive to the border.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your honor, it was dark and I was likely to be eaten by a grue."

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

There's lots of people who get cancer at relatively young ages, get medical treatment, and live a normal lifespan. I'm sure they're all quite happy they got to live an extra 50 years or so instead of just giving up and dying. If you want to kill yourself when you have a health problem (whether it's cancer or a finger cut, because after all, that could get infected), then go ahead. The rest of us prefer health care to get the most life possible.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Obfuscant]

I had a friend in Europe who lock himself out of his house once, he was just going to the local store to get a drink. As he was climbing into the window, police stopped him and asked for ID. He explained his situation, they checked the name on the house with his story and other things, and helped him in with the condition that he had to provide ID once inside. He did that, and before they left, they ticketed him a fine for not having ID (at first). I don't want to live like that.

I am unclear on what part of that story is how you'd not like to live.

Would you rather the cops simply arrested the fellow who looked like he was breaking into a house? Would you rather they ignored the fellow who looked like he was breaking into a house?

I think helping him upon the condition that he proved who he was when he could is a very reasonable response to the situation.

And I think having to carry an ID in a socialist country is a small issue compared to having to pay the taxes and having to work for everyone else's benefit. Then having to stand in line to get the benefits that you've paid for because so many other people get them for free.

Here in the US we already have a national ID -- it's called a passport.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[theaveng]

Tell you what:

We'll give our land back to the Native Americans, when you Europeans give back your land to the Native Europeans (Celts). That's right. Eject the Franks, the Dutch, Norsemen, Roman descendents and all the rest, and restore the land to the Celtics.

What's that? You're not responsible for Julius Caesar's actions when he invaded Celtic territory? You're not responsiblity for the Frankish/Germanic/Anglo-Saxon hordes that later invaded the same territory circa 400 A.D.? Hmmm. Well likewise I'm not responsible for what happened several centuries, so let's stop the nonsense.

The Romans came. They saw. They conquered the Celts. Then the Franks/Germans/Angles came, saw, and conquered the Romans. The the Franks/German/Angles invaded the new world and conquered those people their too.

This is life.
Stop crying over spilled milk.
We live in the present. The sons/daughters are not responsible for the sins of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfathers/mothers.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Chris Burke]

What?!?! We have the highest per capita healthcare costs in the world!. Yes, higher than Germany, UK, Canada, and all the other "socialist" European countries.

Shut up with your 'facts'! You can use facts to prove anything even remotely true!

Letting poor people get medical treatment is going to bankrupt Germany, that's all there is to it. It's not about how much money they spend on health care, it's about how much I hate socialism!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

No, rights absolutely come from society. That is the only place they can come from. You can claim "god", "the creator" or "they just are", but in reality what you're talking about is the social mores of the people in that era. As such they can change with the beliefs of the people.

Here's an exercise for you- you claim they don't come from society. Then where do they come from? Because they sure as hell don't come from nature, and there's nowhere else they *can* come from.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

They tried. We had better weapons, for the most part.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Tumbleweed]

So under your plan a French national on vacation in the US who experiences a serious injury will be told to just hurry up and die?

Well, a French citizen, for sure.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

Hostile intent doesn't mean you have the right to lethal force in any state. It would allow you to attack him certainly, and probably threaten him with a gun, but not to shoot him without further provocation. Which doesn't mean you wouldn't get away with it with a conservative jury and a good lawyer, but the idea of excessive force exists pretty much everywhere.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[clarkkent09]

If by property rights you mean the rights to own land or other natural resources, then you might have a point that they are based on a utilitarian reasoning. But if you are talking about all property rights then you couldn't be more wrong. Humans cannot survive without property almost anywhere on Earth. Arguing that the right to own property (for example clothes) in say Canada in winter, is an arbitrary right is the same thing as arguing that the right to life is an arbitrary right.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[theaveng]

It depends on the State. There might be one state (like California or Massachusetts) where shooting an intruder in your own home is considered murder, but for virtually all of the rest it would be labeled "self defense" and the case dropped in just a few weeks. Strangers have no business being inside your home.

Likewise at the national level, we have laws. You apply for a Visa you are welcome. You walk-in, you're not. This is how We the People have crafted their laws and they should be enforced, not ignored. Otherwise we cease to have a Republic.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[TheRaven64]

We'll give our land back to the Native Americans, when you Europeans give back your land to the Native Europeans (Celts).

After a couple of thousand years, you'll find it pretty hard to locate someone who isn't at least part celtic. Finding someone who isn't part native American in the USA is a lot easier.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

It seems like a big part of the problem is expecting insurance to pay for everything health-related. This leads to a giant amount of overhead, which just adds to the cost of health care.

I don't file a claim with my auto insurance company every time I need to change the oil, get a car wash, get new tires, or replace a broken CV axle. I pay for it myself, and it's cheap (actually, dirt cheap because I do it myself). So why should I have some giant insurance company that I have to go through every time I visit a doctor for an annual check-up or an ingrown toenail or whatever?

Yes, I can't afford hundreds of thousands in medical bills. Similarly, I can't afford to pay the damages if I wreck my car and someone gets hurt. That's why I have auto insurance, to pay in case I do have a car wreck. That almost never happens, so my only communication with my auto insurer is my bill and policy renewals.

Why do we insist on having insurance companies pay for all our medical issues, which we then have to pay them for? This is all just make-work: huge companies that do nothing but process paperwork and shuffle money, taking some of it for themselves, and providing little value in the process (actually, they provide negative value in most cases).

What we need is catastrophic insurance, to pay for those things which don't happen often, and cost a fortune. Things like cancer, ER treatment, medivac helicopter rides when you're in a car wreck, heart surgery when you have a heart attack, etc. Then regular doctors' visits should be paid some other way, either out-of-pocket, or perhaps with socialized healthcare (paid directly by the government, not with a for-profit corporation acting as a middleman). Of course, the existing insurance companies wouldn't like that, because they're making tons of money by acting as a useless middleman, and their lobbyists are sure to "convince" Congresspeople of how important they are in any health care "reform" bills.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[stonewallred]

Check your facts. I can blow your head off in Texas if you are on my property and I can claim any feelings of any type of any possible threat.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

Wrong. Here in Arizona, if someone enters my house, I can shoot him dead on sight. His actions and intent are unimportant; only his presence beyond my front door has any bearing. Texas is the same way, as are many other US states.

Please stop spreading false information. Maybe your crappy state (probably IL or NJ) doesn't allow you to defend yourself against intruders, but most states do.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[kmarple1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine In many states, you can indeed use lethal force without further provocation.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[GlassHeart]

The counter-intuitive thing is that social problems are rarely solved by logic. Yes, illegal immigrants should all be rounded up and deported, but a quick search says there are perhaps 10-20 million of them. Problems of that scale don't just get solved by "shoulds". First, how will you find them all, and what kind of freedoms are you willing to sacrifice to get them? Where will you house them (the US has 2.4M inmates right now, less than 10,000 for the ICE) for processing? What will you do with their US citizen children, many of whom rely on their parents' incomes? What will the loss of their remittances do to Mexico, and how will that chaos affect the US?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[stonewallred]

A bounty of 100 dollars a head for turning them in would have many takers.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!! Yeah! I could retire for real instead of trying to figure out what I am going to do in a few years to make a living.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[theaveng]

Rights are an ephermal idea with no basis in nature.

Rights are no more ephemeral than instincts. The Greeks developed this philosophy ~2300 years ago, and based it upon a simple argument: If you cage a human, will they be happy? No. They will try to escape. They have an instinct to be free - it is an innate natural trait or right of being a homo sapiens. (This was later proved with Spartacus who had no education, but knew he had a right to be free.)

The Greeks also argued you own what nature has given you. i.e. Your body. And the product of your body's labor, such as grabbing a fallen tree and carving it into a boat. i.e. Possessions. And so on.

Rights come from nature. You can no more separate a human from his rights than you can separate him from his heart (at which point he ceases to be). They are instinctual and innate.

Now go study philosophy.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[fredjh]

Without this card I: somehow am not anonymous to my employer, somehow manage to pay taxes, and, for the record, I've always had the "right" to healthcare, but just like the right to bear arms, I've never had the right to force someone to give it to me.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

My grandmother got cancer in her 60s. She got treatment through medicare, and lived into her 80s. My great grandmother was given a year to live a few years before I was born. She died when I was 14, at the age of 92. And I garuntee you it made a difference to both them and the rest of the family that they lived another 2 decades. Especially to my grandfather, who would have had to go into a home without my grandmother as primary care giver.

Or if you want more productive members of society- its quite possible to have strokes, cancers, heart attacks, etc at any age. I have a friend who died of a heart attack at 25. I've known cancer survivors who were 10. Youth doesn't mean invincibility.

Sure, we're all going to die someday. But if we have the knowledge and ability to improve the length and/or quality of their life, why wouldn't we do it? I mean by your type of argument, if we're all going to die anyway why not just close down all hospitals and outlaw medicine- it won't make a difference in the 200-300 year view.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

I stand corrected. And if I ever live in one of those states I intend to donate to any politician who attempts to fix that hideously broken law.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Sponge Bath]

Native American: Papers please...
European Colonist: Have a blanket!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

if everyone who wanted to come to the U.S. did come to the U.S., the whole thing would fall apart.

I hear that a lot as if it were some sort of absolute truth. I don't believe it for a second

With a proper government, people are a net resource - the more people we've got here, the bigger the economy and the greater the ability to overcome obstacles.

At this point somebody usually trots out an argument about "limited resources" - like not enough water, or land, or food, or some other bullshit that's patently not true. While some of those resources are limited in some areas, that's hardly the case across the country. And the great thing about having more people around is that you've got more people to restructure those resources so that they are available where they need to be. Not enough land around los angeles? Build cities in the mid-west where water is also in abundance.

I say the real risk is not having too many people in the USA, the real risk is having such a crappy government that the people who are here aren't productive.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[nospam007]

"You aren't supposed to be able to get on a plane anonymously..."

Why the hell not if the plane stays in the country?
They make you remove your belt, shoes, keys, jewelery, if you look foreign they'll put a finger up your ass but if you don't have any weapon, where's the problem?
There _are_ US citizens without passport and drivers license, they can hardly drive instead.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[wizardforce]

Most people that haven't killed themselves yet like to live longer; that is to say there's a reason to live. Therefore, living longer is generalyl considered beneficial while diseases like cancer which cause suffering during life are to be avoided. Everyone will die eventually, this is true but most people would rather that time come as late as possible.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[WindBourne]

Re-read what I wrote.
Here is a different wording of what I wrote:
Sending the goods to be made in countries like China who employ illegal means such as tying their money to ours or companies illegally hiring illegals, is a means of having to avoid doing automation. The automation would actually give better results (i.e. lower cost goods) over the long haul, but would be harder to implement then doing the first two.

If America is going to bring back manufacturing and/or jobs, they have to stop BOTH.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ptbarnett]

And if I ever live in one of those states I intend to donate to any politician who attempts to fix that hideously broken law.

Do yourself a favor and stay in your current state of residence.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[samkass]

My mother had cancer when she was pregnant with me. I'm now 36 and she's as healthy as me, and me and my kids are much better off for having her around. And Stephen Hawking?

Yes, everyone dies. But health insurance is one of the best investments you can make-- you're shifting money from when you're healthy and can afford it to when you're sick and can't.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[HungryHobo]

"And once a man is in your home, anything you do to him is nice and legal."

"Is that so? . . . Oh Flanders, won't you join me in my kitchen? Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh . . . "

"Uh, it doesn't work if you invite him."

"Hi-dily hey!"

"Go home."

"Too-dily do!"

Re:And what's the problem here?

[nospam007]

"Then when you get cancer you're fucked.."

A multiple bypass because of all those doughnuts will do quite nicely.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ooshna]

Cash is great till you get cancer or have a stroke or get in a bad car accident or you get a genetic disease that requires expensive meds. ect. ect.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DavidShor]

"Police are part of the general welfare which *everyone* benefits from, therefore everyone shares the bill. Same with mail service or an army."

.

Not everyone benefits, just most people. Trivially, robbers don't. But really, many people would argue that entitlements, like universal health-care or education also make most people better off as well.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

I don't disagree in general, our system would have worked much better as is if that had remained the case. But we're well past that point. People expect insurance to pay for everything. And because of that, pharmeceuticals have skyrocketed in price to where it isn't really optional anymore. Even normal costs like doctors visits have risen greatly due to that fact, and the fact that insurances demand an X% discount (so they just inflate their costs to match). We no longer have a choice- people can't afford to pay cash and an attempt to change insurances back and hope the prices fall would end in turmoil. It'd shatter the economy, and people would die for not affording meds in the meantime.

The other place I disagree with is for the very poor- a doctors visit even at inflation adjusted prices of 30 years ago would be a significant cost to them and any just society would need to at least partially subsidize it.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Trinn]

Well then, let me point the argument at a rather important shaping document in this country's history that I think a lot of people should do well to re-read the beginning of. Liberty is indeed one of our basic rights, but it was enumerated along with two others that are also oft ignored and plowed under, these being Life and the Pursuit of Happiness. (yeah, I know the original Locke was something like pursuit of property but the declaration was written as it was for a reason.) This idea of a Right to Life is one that the religious right actually likes to bring out when it supports their attempts to take women's liberty away or to stall important scientific progress, but of course when it comes down to something as simple as keeping our citizenry healthy through tax supported "free" access to health-care, they rail against this, crying that it removes some essential liberty, yet in fact giving the people this access actually goes to preserve liberty, to give people back the liberty to choose their employment rather than being slaves to large corporations to ensure they won't die of preventable or treatable conditions, a liberty that is sorely needed if this country is to ever become competitive again rather than simply owned by a few megacorps in some perverted form of neo-feudalism. The other right I mentioned, the Pursuit of Happiness is one that has been trampled on for at least 100 years in the name of prohibition, among other things, this pseudo-moralistic attempt to remove any sort of fun from life, especially things that are "too much fun" such as the various currently illegal psychoactive substances. Of course this can be traced back to a combination of puritannical belief (the same puritannical belief that has convinced us that sex is bad, that only one man and one woman can possibly form a loving relationship (something my family and I prove false every day I would say, the three of us girls are doing quite well here, and our relationships outside this home are going fairly well too), etc.) as well as a series of anti-immigrant propaganda used to convince us that whatever substance they were affiliated most with is somehow evil, and of course I can't mention this topic without talking of Hearst and his precious wood-pulp paper mills. We are denied the use of a very important medicine as well as the use of a very interesting and versatile plant (food, clothing, paper, etc. can all be manufactured from the cannabis plant) because some rich man decided he needed to stay ahead...of course he's long dead and his awful law lives on, internalized into a kind of circular logic morality that everyone seems to have on the subject of "drugs", namely "its bad because its illegal...its illegal because its bad...". Anyhow, I'm done rambling, I'll hit submit.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Requiem18th]

As a Mexican, I'm not so much worried about the flow of illegal emigrants to the US as I'm worried about the flow of US weapons to Mexico (we have gun control you know?). What I mean is, you could do much more for the immigration problems of your country if you took as much care about what goes out of your country as you care about what goes into it.

Not that you and me have much say in this, the can of worms is already open.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[nospam007]

"Require citizenship checks for access to health care of all kinds,.."

I guess you have that proof always hanging around your neck so it's handy when you accidentally fall out of your tree and get transported unconsciously to the vet^h^h^hhospital.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[0100010001010011]

Tell that to Israel.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DavidShor]

Yeah, there's a pretty obvious intuitive right to "personal effects". I should have made the distinction more obvious in the post.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for pointing this out. These assholes don't know the difference between criminals and law abiding citizens. Illegal aliens are ILLEGAL. They are screwing the LEGAL ALIENS waiting to get into this country. They are screwing the GREEN CARD HOLDERS. They are screwing the VISA holders. They are screwing the US Citizens. They are screwing YOU.

They aren't hapless morons that got lost and ended up in another fucking Country. They are here illegally and they know it.

This has nothing to do with immigration. This is illegal INVASION. See the Fall of Rome for more details on why that's FUCKING BAD you dickless twits.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[0100010001010011]

Why?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[fredjh]

I'm in the middle of Atlas Shrugged. I will freely admit Rand was a terrible writer, but I find the substantive content very interesting.

So Hank Reardon has just been schooled by Fransisco D'Anconia on immorality and guilt.

The government declares something immoral, repeats it over and over again with the help of the press and society starts repeating the mantra over and over again, and suddenly you do something that was once considered fine, and you feel guilty because others are now telling you it's immoral; the only way "they" win is if you accept their definition of morality and apply it to yourself.

What's the difference, really? Marijuana is illegal... tobacco and alcohol aren't. Are you really supposed to feel "guilty" or immoral for smoking marijuana when you haven't hurt anyone (except, perhaps, yourself)?

Then it occurred to me all the things the government has been berating lately... profits are evil, insurance companies are evil (OK, I know there are incidents, but are you going to tell me they do more bad than good?), gasoline companies are evil (why? because we're so dependent on them?), and to most slashdotters our internet providers are evil, Microsoft is evil.

It's just interesting to think about... the book was just amazingly prescient.... demonize something that is essentially just a natural occurrence, and suddenly doing something that's always been OK makes you feel guilty?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Tadghe]

I'm assuming you're approaching this from a US centric point of view. If not, please ignore.

From a U.S point of view the courts have made it VERY clear that the police, and the state in general do NOT have a duty to protect you (they should, and most try, but it is not a requirement). To quote

" But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." (Bowers v. DeVito, 1982) see http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/686/686.F2d.616.80-2078.80-1865.html, paragraph 6.

To continue. The state "... does not have an affirmative duty to protect individuals from private third parties" (Gonzales vs. City of Castle Rock, 2004).

If you really want an eye opener on just what the state can get away with not doing in regards to the protection of a private citizen, read the Gonzales vs. Castle Rock opinion. It's read that sounds like a bad "B" movie.

The key part of the Bowers decision, in regards to your argument is "...it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order" (Bowers v. DeVito, 1982). This doesn't (in my opinion) invalidate your argument, but you'll be hard pressed to argue that a service is, in of itself, a right, rather than a privilege.

One last point, you *DO* have the right "to not be killed by random strangers", but, as the court noted, it is up to you to claim that right. You can have Life, Liberty, and Happiness, but it's up to you to do what is necessary, within the confines of our society, to exercise those rights.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

And what is this higher authority? God? Are you really going to try that line on a government based in part on separation of church and state? It makes for nice flowing rhetoric, but not for reality.

Not to mention- which god? Depending on what religion you pick you're going to get very different answers for what your rights are. Pick Muslim and you'll get Shariah law. Pick Judaism and you'll get Talmudic- which can be just as strict. And lets not forget that the mideval church tried to get married women to only fuck on certain nights, and had to wear a specially designed nightgown with a slit in the proper slot and everything else covered.

If rights actually came froma divine creator, they'd be inherent in the laws of the universe. Anything else is a societal construct.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[nospam007]

"We should be seeking to SHRINK the population (block immigration) not increase it. (Same applies to the EU.)"

The EU citizens don't breed like rabbits, they need those immigrants to pay for their pensions.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[aztracker1]

OH MY GOD! He's coming straight at me!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Lord Bitman]

And that's exactly what the real native true blooded igneous rock formations should have done when your self-replicating arrangements of hydrocarbons waltzed on in pretending they had some kind of a right to be there.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I think you missed the point. It's not so much that we should be mourning the brutal conquering of the native americans (or, since I live in australia, the aborigines), it's that we shouldn't be so hypocritical about refusing to let others into the country, especially if it is in expense of their life. If anything, it should be in expense of our life.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[rolfwind]

I am unclear on what part of that story is how you'd not like to live.

Having an ID on me at all times. It would be a hassle.

Since I don't drink nor drive nor smoke, I usually have no reason to carry an ID. I'd rather just have a $20 on me than an entire wallet.

Getting fined for that is ridiculous.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[sjbe]

To be fair, if his ancestors came on a boat, they probably immigrated legally.

Hah! Tell that to the next Native American you meet. I'm sure that argument will carry a lot of water with the people who actually were here first.

If we only had legal immigrants competing for the jobs, wages would not have fallen as steeply, simply because there would be 10 million or so less workers available to do the work.

And a lot of work simply would not get done. Do you work in the fields? Construction? Do you think those cheap food prices you enjoy happen because of high wages? Do you do all your food shopping at Whole Foods? You seem to have a very simplistic view of a very complicated situation.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[wiredlogic]

There are a lot of big problems in our mishmash of vested interests that leads to so much wasted money.

* We have a legal system that allows for excessive damages in medical malpractice suits. This makes it mandatory for doctors to carry a heavy burden of insurance and that gets passed on to whoever is paying for the medical care. Doctors over-perform tests and over-prescribe drugs because of fear they may be sued.
* Prescription drugs are allowed to be marketed to consumers, driving demand and insurance costs where covered.
* Pharmaceutical prices are unregulated, allowing excessive profiteering.
* Hospitals are allowed to operate for profit. WTF?
* Hospitals are able to milk patients with inflated fees for basic items.
* Medical insurance companies are allowed to operate for profit.
* Mutual insurance companies are allowed to convert to for-profit status.
* Employer provided health insurance reduces the competitiveness among insurers because the employees don't directly feel the brunt of the costs and lack options from different providers that would drive costs down. This unnecessarily raises costs for private insurance. It remains to be seen how the new plan will save money here.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[squidfood]

This is illegal INVASION. See the Fall of Rome for more details on why that's FUCKING BAD you dickless twits.

The European settlement of North America (often 100% illegal as it happens) is another fine example of this.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

First off your cage idea is just wrong. People can quite easily get used to lack of freedom- in fact people who've been released from jail have a difficult time adjusting to the world outside. Some even commit a crime to get recomitted.

Using philosophy as an argument for this is silly- you can argue two opposite points using philosophy and both sides caqn be absolutely right. There is no right and wrong in philosophy, there's merely consistent and inconsistent.

If rights came from nature, violating them would be physically impossible. Since it obviously isn't, they must come from another source. Furthermore if rights really came from nature, all societies would have the same idea of what those rights are. They don't. For a trivial example, look at China.

Rights come from the society, and are shaped and decided by the beliefs of the people in that society. Anything other than that is either rabble rousing rhetoric or a fable meant to indoctirnate the young.

Please note that this doesn't mean rights are bad, worthless, or not worth fighting for. On the contrary, they're a useful way to state the principles of your government. Picking different rights will cause different socio-economic results that will result in more or less stable future societies. And there's definitely a set of rights that I think should be universal, because I think they make life better. Many of them we probably share- freedom of speech for example. But they aren't natural- they're formed by society, and many functioning societies don't have them.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Trinn]

if we take your argument at face value, that this country is indeed overpopulated, then would it not make more sense to target the actual sources of major population increase? I mean, lets start with decent sex ed and access to family planning supplies for everyone, that right there helps a lot, lets people choose when to have children. Another thing to do is to work to actually give everyone a chance to take part in the economy, to do something about the frightening number of people living below the poverty line in a country where some people have enough money to own a number of multimillion-dollar homes that barely get used. It's just an atrocity that we should work against each other to the point where /anyone/ has to go without food or shelter or medical care in one of the wealthiest nations in the world. The reason I suggest this is twofold, first off we'd actually be encouraging the building of a skilled workforce in this country, instead of shipping all our jobs offshore and leaving there as of some recent statistics I've read (yeah I know, citation needed) that there are 4 unemployed americans for each 1 open job. Think about that for a second. Err...I think I just wandered off-topic, sorry, I'll just stop rambling now.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[fredjh]

I don't think those things make us safe, and they don't make me feel safe at all.

Life has risks; you drive down the street, you are risking your life. You take a shower, you are risking your life (more accidents in the home happen in the shower/bathtub than anywhere else).

The whole "if it saves just one life" mantra is complete nonsense. Tell you what, if you didn't drive to the movie theater, you wouldn't be putting your life at risk. If only one person has died driving to a movie, such a frivolous thing to die for, then wouldn't it be worth banning driving for non-essential frivolities? Sounds stupid, but you're more likely to be struck by lightening than killed by a terrorist, and that was true before AND after 9/11; you are more likely to die in a car accident; I don't know the stats, but you're probably more likely to die doing repairs to your own home... should that be illegal, then? Should you be required to pay a licensed "professional" to clean your gutters?

The whole backlash against the airline industry and for travesties like national ID cards is simply knee-jerk emotional responses not founded by any sort of reality; people are being completely irrational.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[nospam007]

"We got the responsibility for the people who pay taxes to pay for other people's healthcare. "

And other people's roads, schools, airports, postal delivery and not to forget nowadays, other people's banks!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[guibaby]

I actually prefer less than lethal force, but the last bullet is always a slug.

'A little torture never hurt anyone.' ~fictional George W. Bush

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And frankly, I'd rather not have my tax dollars going to paying for the errors and duplication of effort that come from not having a single, reliable personal ID.

So, you would rather have your tax dollars paying for the errors and bad assumoptions that come from having a single overly trusted id instead.

Life is never so simple as you appear to believe. There will never be such a thing as a "single, reliable personal ID" - for a whole host of reasons. Chief among them is that having just one ID is like having one big lock between the fraudsters and piles of money. Figure out how to forge that ID that everyone thinks is reliable and BAM they are in the promised land of fraud.

That duplication of effort you don't like? That's security and efficiency. Having application-specific IDs makes the system more secure because (a) a lot less people are going to be trying to forge each one - think 50 different driver's licenses versus one, that's 50 times the expertise required from the same number of forgers. (b) requiring multiple ids for certain high-value authentications makes those forgeries even harder while low value authentications don't need some uber-id, they just need to provide a reasonable level of confidence.

And don't forget (c) - unintended consequences - one id to rule them all means one key for every single database. That puts a handle on your entire life that anyone with malicious intent can grab ahold of and yank on. There is no need for me to have the same identity at the bank, at the grocery where I use a credit card, at the DMV, at my job, at the nighclub, etc. All of those places just need to authenticate me in their limited domain - the bank needs to know that I am the same person taking money out who puts money in, the grocery store just needs to know that I am the authorized user of my credit card, the DMV just needs to know that I am qualified to drive with no legal sanctions against it, my job only needs to know that I'm the same guy they interviewed, the nightclub only needs to know that I'm of legal age to drink alcohol and that they haven't kicked me out in the past, etc.

None of those organizations need to know what the other organization knows about me. But put everything under one number and you can count on them either sharing that information for their profit - not yours or my benefit - at the very least boxing all the info up in a database that they sell access to ala credit reporting agencies gone wild. And this isn't some chicken-little thing - DMVs have routinely sold their databases to companies who resell it to anyone willing to pay. That's despite cases like "My Sister Sam" where an actress had a stalker who pulled her DMV info to find her house, walked up to her door and shot her in the face, killing her dead. As it is today, any PI or other motivated individual can pull up a buttload of personal information on you for a couple of hundred dollars.

The solution isn't some gargantuan mess of privacy laws either - laws that will require tons of overhead for compliance, and can easily be changed at the whim of a panicked congress or just outright ignored by criminals. The solution is to stop trying to centralize identity. Leave it the fuck alone. Let each group do what it needs to do authentication the people it needs to authenticate, and no more.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[gumpish]

We're ALL going to be wormfood.

Sounds like Mr. 1.2M uid hasn't gotten the memo about the singularity.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

Even normal costs like doctors visits have risen greatly due to that fact, and the fact that insurances demand an X% discount (so they just inflate their costs to match). We no longer have a choice- people can't afford to pay cash

Actually, you should ask your doctor what his "cash price" is. Many doctors will give you a giant discount if you pay cash, since they can avoid insurance hassles, don't have to pay staff to deal with submitting the paperwork, don't have to wait 6-12 months for payment, and even pocket the cash and not tell the IRS.

The other place I disagree with is for the very poor- a doctors visit even at inflation adjusted prices of 30 years ago would be a significant cost to them and any just society would need to at least partially subsidize it.

As I said before, even socialized health care (with the government directly paying the doctors) would be a good option here. After all, we already have Medicaid for the poor, which has been around for decades, so it's not exactly something new. The problem is this crazy new system where we have several layers of middlemen adding expense (not only the insurance companies, but all the people employed by health care providers to deal with all the insurance paperwork). We're going to have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and it'll all be subsidized by taxpayers resulting in high taxes and a crippled economy. Even the Europeans will have a giant advantage over us, because their socialized healthcare is done the right way, without being a giant hand-out to big insurance companies. Germany is the world's #1 exporter.

We no longer have a choice- people can't afford to pay cash and an attempt to change insurances back and hope the prices fall would end in turmoil. It'd shatter the economy, and people would die for not affording meds in the meantime.

I think this idea is ridiculous. If Congress instituted true healthcare reform and took the insurance companies out of the loop, the only "shattering" would be all the morons employed by the insurance companies. They'd have to go find new jobs, but big deal; lots of people are out of work now anyway, and "that's the way things have always been" isn't a justification for keeping things broken just because a bunch of people stay employed that way. See the Broken Window Fallacy. This is basically the same justification used for bailing out AIG and the failed banks, which has done nothing to fix anything and only enriched people who deserve to be broke.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[fredjh]

The "right" to healthcare has always been a right, actually. Nobody would ever stop you from seeking healthcare; and I would say it was "right" by the tenth amendment.

But, like all rights enumerated in the constitution, it's a negative one. I have the right to bear arms, but I don't have the right to force someone to give (or even sell) me a gun. I have the right to free speech, but I don't have the right to force a newspaper to print my opinions, or to force a radio station to give me air time. Healthcare is, IMO, the exact same way... it is a right, it always has been, and it's a negative right.

If someone wants it enshrined in the constitution, it would logically read something like "the right to seek healthcare shall not be infringed."

Re:And what's the problem here?

[bretticus]

Without making any arguments about immigration in the current time, let me point out the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. Ok it was 89 years ago rather than "100+", but that's pretty close in my mind. It had also been proposed several times before. Immigration quotas are nothing new.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

Because I believe in the right to life. And stealing a few hundred dollars worth of stuff isn't sufficient provocation to be worth taking theirs. They're assholes and deserve to go to jail, but they don't deserve to die. Now change the circumstances slightly- if they're threatening your family, or if they have a weapon and you're afraid they'll use it for example- and then I think its justified. But mere theft isn't enough. His right to life trumps your right to your stuff. There are lesser amounts of force that would be justified however- physically attacking him. Using non-lethal weapons, such as pepper spray, taser, etc. Maybe even a baseball bat to the legs, so long as you stop at a broken bone and don't beat the shit out of him with it. But not shooting him. Threatening with a gun maybe, but the problem with threatening with a gun is that if he calls your bluff you have no choice but to shoot him or retreat (which may not be possible)- its better to just attack with non-lethal weapons.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

And when did you stop beating your wife?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

I think this idea is ridiculous. If Congress instituted true healthcare reform and took the insurance companies out of the loop, the only "shattering" would be all the morons employed by the insurance companies. They'd have to go find new jobs, but big deal; lots of people are out of work now anyway, and "that's the way things have always been" isn't a justification for keeping things broken just because a bunch of people stay employed that way. See the Broken Window Fallacy. This is basically the same justification used for bailing out AIG and the failed banks, which has done nothing to fix anything and only enriched people who deserve to be broke.

If we went true single payer, that's a whole different ball game. I was thinking more along the lines of if starting 6 months from now insurances were only allowed to pay for hospitalization/major illnesses. Doing a hard switch like that would destroy the economy, because prices just don't react that flexibly. Long term things would work out, short term would have huge pains.

I'd love to get the insurances out alltogether and go with single payer (with some form of copays to help avoid hypochondriac issues) or government run. Not happening with this set of republican senators- try again in a decade or two. I do think that the bill is an improvement, even if it could have been much better.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[hey!]

This reminds me of back when I was in the environmental non-profit world about fifteen years ago. Greenpeace was on the warpath about chlorine and was making noises about demanding that chlorine be banned. Some of the young paladins on staff mention it one day to the boss, who happened to have a PhD in engineering. The boss pointed out that industry uses chlorine because it's chemically reactive. If we banned chlorine, they'd find something else that was reactive to take its place. In all probability that thing would have all the drawbacks of chlorine. It might even be worse.

"Never," the boss says, "talk about banning anything until you know what's going to replace it."

That's how I feel about a national ID card. If we *don't* have a national ID card, what will the government obtain to do the things it wants a national ID card for?

I'll give you one suggestion: biometrics. Instead of "papers please" it's "thumb please," or "iris please." Worse yet, consider the possibilities of face scanning. It can be integrated with moderate success with surveillance cameras. Now nobody is asking you for anything. Your ID is being taken without your consent or perhaps without your knowledge, and filed away in a database. Furthermore once the government relies upon this system they will believe in it. That means if the system has a false positive ID match near the next terrorist bombing, they'll put you on the watch list and there may be nothing you can do to get yourself off it, because you don't know *why* you were put on the list.

Conservatives focus on the indignity of "papers please", and maybe that is an indignity, but is it less of an indignity if you don't know it's going on? Isn't it more of an indignity that you've lost the ability to detect when government is demanding your ID? Your movements could be tracked through a network of surveillance cameras. It's not quite the same as having the secret police follow you; it's worse. They don't have to follow you, they can just piece it all together from your cell phone signal and biometrics then pull a transcript of your activities from a database, correlating it with the activities of your associates or persons of interest to the security apparatus.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

There's some problems here:

* We have a legal system that allows for excessive damages in medical malpractice suits. This makes it mandatory for doctors to carry a heavy burden of insurance and that gets passed on to whoever is paying for the medical care. Doctors over-perform tests and over-prescribe drugs because of fear they may be sued.

No, someone who had the wrong leg amputated deserves a giant payout. There's no such thing as an excessively large damage award; if you screw up, you need to pay.

The problem is that the system has no good way of getting rid of bad doctors. Someone who amputates the wrong leg, or botches surgery in a catastrophic way, should not be able to operate again, ever. It may sound harsh, but that's the way it is. Pilots who wreck planes or helicopters usually never get to fly again if they were at fault. The FAA might not prevent them, depending on the circumstances, but they're never going to get a paying job as a pilot again.

Doctors who screw up should have their insurance pay for it, but after that, why are they still working as doctors and doing surgeries? Insurers shouldn't be covering them, and hospitals shouldn't be employing them. Something's wrong if they're able to continue practicing and carrying insurance.

Pharmaceutical prices are unregulated, allowing excessive profiteering.

Don't forget patents on DNA, patents on naturally-occurring compounds, and the fact that doctors are little more than drug pushers, trained by the pharma companies to push expensive drugs instead of cheaper alternatives or generics. The entire way the medical profession operates in this country is utterly broken. "Doctors" here generally aren't worth squat.

Hospitals are allowed to operate for profit. WTF?

That does seem screwed up. I wonder if they're allowed to operate as non-profit.

Hospitals are able to milk patients with inflated fees for basic items.

There's a good reason for that: hospitals wouldn't stay in business otherwise. The problem is that there's millions of people (many of them illegal aliens) who use ERs as their primary care physicians, because of a Federal law that doesn't allow them to turn people away. So hospitals are required, by law, to provide free treatment to people. To pay for it, they jack up the cost for everyone else, and it shows up as things like $10 aspirin pills, $20 band-aids, etc.

Employer provided health insurance reduces the competitiveness among insurers because the employees don't directly feel the brunt of the costs and lack options from different providers that would drive costs down. This unnecessarily raises costs for private insurance. It remains to be seen how the new plan will save money here.

It won't. This new plan is only going to make things worse.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[WraithCube]

I wonder why you would find suck a law hideously broken. There was a story in montana of an 11 year old girl who shot and killed 2 intruders in her home. She didn't even know it at the time, but one was armed with a handgun and the two had stabbed a guy to death in a previous break-in. The fact that they probably would have killed her has nothing to do with the fact that hadn't threatened her with a weapon and I doubt you'd suggest we put an 11 year old girl in court and executed for murder charges for that.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[RoFLKOPTr]

And that's exactly what the real native true blooded americans should have done when your ancestors waltzed on in pretending they had some kind of a right to be there.

We waltzed in here with guns ablazing intending to conquer this land and make it our own. We succeeded. This is our land now, and nobody has the right to be here but people we say have the right to be here. And that will be the case until another people do the same to us, which is not likely to happen.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

I'd love to get the insurances out alltogether and go with single payer (with some form of copays to help avoid hypochondriac issues) or government run. Not happening with this set of republican senators- try again in a decade or two. I do think that the bill is an improvement, even if it could have been much better.

You mean, "with this set of Republican and Democratic senators". There's no real difference between the two parties; both are beholden to corporate interests; the only difference is which corporations. The Democrats are big friends of the insurance companies, so they certainly don't want to cut them out of the loop and the constant supply of taxpayer dollars.

Doing a hard switch like that would destroy the economy, because prices just don't react that flexibly. Long term things would work out, short term would have huge pains.

The economy is already in the toilet and going down rapidly. It needs to be destroyed and rebuilt.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[GaryOlson]

If you ever find yourself in one of those states , I suggest you buy a firearm and join your neighbors at the shooting range. The sense of community is outstanding!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[RoFLKOPTr]

I think you missed the point. It's not so much that we should be mourning the brutal conquering of the native americans (or, since I live in australia, the aborigines), it's that we shouldn't be so hypocritical about refusing to let others into the country, especially if it is in expense of their life. If anything, it should be in expense of our life.

We're not refusing to let others into the country. We're refusing to let people into the country who do not enter via the proper mechanisms. We want to know who is here, why they are here, and make sure they're not criminals. We want to know where they live, how long they'll be here, and what they're doing for means of income. People who do not follow proper protocols for entry into the United States begin to take advantage of the public resources that are paid for by legal residents and visitors (aka taxpayers) without paying taxes themselves. I welcome all immigrants who wish to follow the rules and laws and pay for the resources they use. I do not welcome those who come here illegally and make my tax money worth less.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Danga]

Please stay away from Arizona. I like the law here a lot, why do you want to protect the intruder? If you don't belong in a house then don't enter it, how hard is that to follow? Whenever places pass laws against Castle Doctrine there are always asshole criminals who break into someones house, get shot up but not killed, and then end up suing the poor homeowners. Also look at gun control stats and you will find that anywhere in the US that has increased gun control there is an increase in criminal behavior and places with less gun control usually have much lower rates of crime.

While you may feel safe calling the police and waiting for them to arrive when an intruder breaks into your home I prefer to actually be able to protect myself and if the intruder does not respond and run the other way after my warning then they will be having a close conversation with a bullet not long after. Many home invasions in Arizona result in the homeowner and others seriously injured or dead and many are also kidnapped (Phoenix is number 2 in the WORLD for kidnappings, Mexico City is the only other city in the world with more), I won't be messing around with any intruders that is for sure. Here is a link to an article about how Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the USA:

http://articles.courant.com/2010-03-17/news/hc-freshperez-mexico-drug-carte.artmar17_1_drug-cartels-ciudad-juarez-border-town

Re:And what's the problem here?

[OrwellianLurker]

As an American, I'm worried about the flow of Mexican narcotics such as methamphetamine to America (we have drug control you know?). What I mean is, your government, military, and police are corrupt and controlled by drug cartels. If as a country you decided to take car of your internal problems, then we would all be better off.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Kitkoan]

I'm not sure why Slashdot is so afraid of this. You don't have a right to be anonymous to your employer. You don't have a right to avoid taxes. You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants? We already drive around with standardized (yet customizable non-materially) license plates on our cars. You already need proof of government permission and proof somebody's going to pay if you hit something to drive a car. You aren't supposed to be able to get on a plane anonymously...

Let's not think of the things we'd be able to get away with with a fake id... and start thinking how we can make sure somebody else can't fake their ID for our mutual protection.

You were also not supposed to be protesting at many of the Vietnam war protests since it could get you blacklisted and/or fired from your job (thats why it was a common suggestion to write a swear word on your face, mandatory censored on tv) so people did it anonymously. Watergate wasn't supposed to be made public (thats why he used to name 'Deep throat') and made it public anonymously. America was not to have a Revolutionary War for its independence, so everyone started and set it up anonymously.

Amazing how much good comes from being anonymous.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your absolutely correct, so all of us from European descent, should return to Europe. Is that more suitable to your liking?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[roman_mir]

Correct, rights that can be denied over time are privileges.

Rights are privileges from one person to another and back, so as long as both people agree not to violate the same right in a reciprocal fashion, then they supposedly have created a 'right'.

If many people agree that they will reciprocate to each other for certain privileges - rights, and if they were able to enact into a law that it is government's job to protect this right, then the government is basically acting as a police and a judge to make sure nobody goes against a right of another.

That's all we can do with regards to providing the rights.

Now with an examples:

1. When majority of people set up a system, where they maintain a government, and under the law they allow themselves to own slaves from other countries/races, then again, it is their right to do so. However if the slaves fight the slave owners and over time are able to change the law so that all people are protected under the law, regardless of where they came from, then again, it is a new right for all.

2. When a majority of people set up a system, where they maintain a government, and under the law they specified that government shall not impose income taxes, but then the government finds a loophole of some kind and does this, whatever the reason (national security, debt, whatever) then it can be said that rights of all individuals have been reduced in that system, so now the system has been subverted to take away the original broad right.

So what I am saying I guess is that rights are agreements that are maintained by force at the level of the law and that rights must not be reduced to a minority or to a subset, they really are supposed to be only increased over time. If the rights are reduced over time or are provided to a reduced subset of the population that is smaller in size than the original population that used to enjoy this right, it then can be said that those are not rights, they are in fact privileges.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Thing 1]

It's not "my stuff" that I'd be worried about in such a situation. It's, "my safety", "my life", and "my wife's and daughter's aversion to rape". In those circumstances, yes, deadly force is appropriate.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[IICV]

Yes, and with the money saved by letting his grandma die at 80 instead of keeping her on chemo and life support until 84, we could save the lives of two or three 25 year-olds with have cancer.

Seriously, there needs to be a point at which society throws up its hands and says "look, you've lived a full life - we're not helping you cling to life for another four".

Re:And what's the problem here?

[MurphyZero]

And they (Native Asians/Polynesians living in America) should have. Particularly when the Europeans brought their diseases with them. You see what happened when the (party of the first part) didn't? That's exactly what we (current Americans) should be trying to prevent. Those who forget history doomed to repeat and all.

You'll obviously bring up country founded on immigration (i.e., invasion) which was important to our country as we were growing. Just like a human, it is important for a growing teen (country) to eat more than normal (immigration) to thrive. But once you reach adulthood, it's important to watch your diet (immigration controls) and make sure you eat healthy (keeping immigration under control, proper skill sets, people who are willing to follow our rules and regulations which could be different than theirs)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[trurl7]

I think you have an unrealistic assessment of the nature of such incidents. You are assuming a sane criminal who will prefer a broken leg to a broken neck. You are assuming a perfectly controlled (as in not at all affected by adrenaline) father whose children and wife are in the house with a stranger who is stealing something, may be armed, or may simply want to kill the man, rape the women, shoot the children and THEN steal the stuff. Or any of dozens of other really bad things that could go wrong.

The invader's right to life may trump my right of possession. But if I break his legs and the bastard turns around and sues me in civil court (as can easily happen in sunny NY (may its laws be damned to hell)), then I'd say there is no justice. Things can go wrong. And I would rather the example father worry more about stopping the invader than getting sued by the surviving SOB afterward.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[plague911]

Apparently you cant do math because the real equation is

1) Pay for it now

2) Pay for it later when they are dying from it .

I don't really understand why people would go for #2. It literally costs at least 1000 times more to do what you are suggesting. Here is an actual REAL example.

1) Pay for someones $10 penicillin prescription because they have an infected cut. and because they are poor

2)Pay $400,000 to amputate their leg because they put off buying the medicine because they were going to be evicted. Knowing they will never be able to pay it back.

3)Let them die from it.

Now right now i am going to call you dirt stupid if you dont consider #1 a better option than #2. Not only is it the humane thing to do, but its completely crazy stupid to wait until someone is dieing to help them out.

Heres another example for the ultra stupid. Your dumb ass neighbor has a small fire on their door step and they are not taking care of it. You dont just let it go and say they can take care of it themselves... you help them or call the police or something. If you dont do anything you bet your ass your going to pay ten fold.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Darinbob]

This is not a "home". I don't have to present ID or get permission to visit other states in US, or to visit other towns, etc. Yes, it's "illegal" to enter the US without permission but people need to stop treating it like a massive criminal act. It's definitely not at the level that deserves jail time and an arbitrary length of detention. Fine them and fine the employer.

And yes, give them health care - it's far cheaper than having them wait until they require massively expensive emergency services.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[stonewallred]

As a certified southern born, bred, raised and still a redneck in a state that is not quite that forgiving. But then again, we don't need stinking laws when the d-bag is dead and the jury is made up of 12 decent folks who would have done the same thing. Plus the cocksucker won't be testifying in court either.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[asynchronous13]

It's not so much being afraid, as it is that we already have a National ID. It's called a passport. I see no good reason to spend time and money implementing an additional one.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[wiredlogic]

No, someone who had the wrong leg amputated deserves a giant payout.

We just had a report on a guy who grossed $1.5M after cutting off his thumb with a saw that didn't implement the sawstop device. How is that not excessive?

If someone gets elective cosmetic surgery, develops an infection, and ends up with disfiguring scars is that the doctor's fault? They'll still live out their natural life span. Does this person deserve a multi-million dollar payout? How do you know the patient didn't contribute to the problem with unhygenic behaviors? Malpractice suits aren't all about the obvious things like botched amputations or tools and sponges left in the body. There are plenty of idiots out there who contributed to their own misery and expect someone else to pay.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[stonewallred]

bounties on their heads. the ending of the BS anchor baby crap, the shooting of anyone trying to sneak over the border, the locking up of anyone who employees, houses, feeds or does anything for them. add in an amnesty that consists of deportation and the implantation of a tracking device and a tatto in case they snuck back in and a fat check for 25k US dollars and they'd deport themselves. That would be my plan.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[plague911]

except it costs us $10,000 to ship them back, and it only costs them $10 to get here... Independent of the the "right or wrong" part. That just is a loosing agreement. One that will leave the US broke. Just look at the $3,000,000,000 you conservatives spent on a cyber fence on the mexican border. Literally they have found it to be completely ineffective.

Personally Id have at least found it technologically interesting if it had worked. But it had 0% effectiveness.Let me repeat that it as ZERO PERCENT EFFECTIVE. Fighting a good fight is all well and good. But this method has been proven to be a complete failure.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Hatta]

Wrong. Here in Arizona, if someone enters my house, I can shoot him dead on sight.

Careful, it doesn't work if you invite them in.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[rhathar]

Hell, even in California, where I live, which is considered an 'evil, anti-gun liberal state' when it comes to things like this says:

California Penal Code 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC 197[1]. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."

Re:And what's the problem here?

[mdmkolbe]

my SSN is no more harmful to me than ... the primary keys assigned to me in any of hundreds of databases.

As long as there is no "one key to rule them all", I would agree with you because the data between those databases is effectively compartmentalized. A national ID will be that one key to rule them all (Cf. SSN and how you wouldn't need to protect your SSN so carefully if is was only used for what it was intended).

Personally, I don't like the idea of our entire society being single-sign-on.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[plague911]

they tried to kill us. but we won? Shit happens. The same thing happened with those "true blooded americans". Their ancestors moved into the area and they killed off everyone who was living there before. Its the way of the world.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Darinbob]

Auto insurance companies will give you lower rates if you have a good driving record. Auto warranties will require proof that you've maintained your car as well. So it makes sense for health insurance to make some effort to ensure that customers do preventive maintenance on themselves instead of waiting until there's something catastrophic.

It's far cheaper on the insurance if people go in for regular checkups and deal with minor complaints than to wait until there's a major medical problem. But currently the insurers seem to act like the opposite, denying claims for minor or preventative visits.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[TClevenger]

I don't file a claim with my auto insurance company every time I need to change the oil, get a car wash, get new tires, or replace a broken CV axle. I pay for it myself, and it's cheap (actually, dirt cheap because I do it myself). So why should I have some giant insurance company that I have to go through every time I visit a doctor for an annual check-up or an ingrown toenail or whatever?

That's because your car isn't insured against breakdowns. If you paid monthly for breakdown insurance, the warranty company would be smart to throw in monthly oil changes and build it into the price. That way, you'd be much more likely to get that basic maintenance done, and ultimately their repair bills would be lower. And the reason you go through the "giant insurance company" is that doctors have colluded to charge you three or four times as much if you go in uninsured. That's why that doctor's visit with the $20 copay will cost you between $60 and $240 if you go in uninsured--and that's just for the checkup.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ShakaUVM]

And that's why the Spartans outlawed slavery and got the right to yell FREEDOM! at Xerxes at Thermopoylae.

Or wait.

No.

They'd gun down slaves for fun, and as a right of passage.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[untorqued]

Yes, it was difficult to immigrate to the U.S. 100 years ago, but for some more than others. There are pieces of history that don't get a lot of airtime in grade school or high school history, such as the Page Act and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Many more followed within the last century, including the Immigartion Act of 1924. Within the context of all of the immigration restrictions that the U.S. government has put in place throughout its history against groups popularly stereotyped as carriers of disease, of low moral character, and lazy, the current immigration debate looks to me like just one more iteration of us vs them xenophobia in the U.S.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[rhathar]

Actually, even California says that forcible entry creates a reasonable assumption of fear AND that you do not have to retreat, even if retreating would provide your safety.

California Penal Code 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC 197. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."

Re:And what's the problem here?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Are you going that you don't have a fundamental right not to be killed by random strangers?

Actually, I don't think I do. Have such a Right, I mean. Nor does anyone else.
Otherwise, all you'd have to do to avoid being murdered is invoke that Right, and the murderer would have to let you live.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[plague911]

To be fair most of that was an accident. (Our diseases did the vast majority of the killing.) And you are actually completely wrong. We killed off all the native americans? Than where are all Hispanics in the world coming from? Are they magic ninjas? O no wait they are native Americans or at least their distance cousins.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[plague911]

Not true. That depends greatly on which state you live in. And quite frankly itd be pretty east to say its self defense... which is a good thing

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Derosian]

Meh, just another moral justification for degradation of those who are not US citizens... When will people learn that we're all humans whether citizen or not, and should all be treated equally. Unfortunately it doesn't really work like that in reality due to the effects illegal immigration have on our society.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Eil]

You just got the right to healthcare,

It's not a right. A right is something you're allowed to have, not something you're required to buy. Health insurance (not necessarily health care) is now a requirement for every American adult. It's great for people who have been screwed over by the current healthcare system and I'm very happy for them. I'm unhappy that those of us who are in good health and know how to take care of ourselves are now unconditionally required to give our money to insurance companies for a product that we don't need or face a federal fine. It might have been an easier pill to swallow if the reform included a cheap government plan where at least the money would be funding a good cause, but that was the first thing the insurance companies got nixed. No matter how many "reforms" the final bill contains, the insurance companies just got a new captive market handed to them by the federal government. They will work at chipping away the restrictions applied to them over the next few decades but the requirement for every person in the country to buy healthcare insurance is now permanent.

America just got fleeced.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[WraithCube]

and now I feel like an idiot. My post links to a page saying that my original article was a fake.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[stonewallred]

lol, we have the largest socialized system also IIRC, and definitely the most expensive. Called medicaid and medicare and the VA.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[kimvette]

House them? Fuck that. Load them into a cargo plane and drop them deep in the middle of Mexico. I'd wholeheartedly approve giving each one a parachute at no charge rather than have to fund their housing, food, health care, etc. while they don't pay a fucking dime.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[khallow]

Hah! Tell that to the next Native American you meet. I'm sure that argument will carry a lot of water with the people who actually were here first.

In other words, they immigrated over a little earlier. And they didn't have the foresight to restrict immigration afterward.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[plague911]

Apparently you have never heard of a deductible. ........ That basically is the counter point to your whole rant...its exactly what you are talking about.(as per catastrophic health insurance)...

There are both car and health insurance plans with high and low deductibles. With auto insurance you get what you pay for. However until now with health insurance you did not.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

We just had a report on a guy who grossed $1.5M after cutting off his thumb with a saw that didn't implement the sawstop device. How is that not excessive?

Because being without a thumb isn't much better than having a hand cut off. There's a reason dolphins never developed tools; it's called the opposable thumb.

However, this is completely irrelevant to medical malpractice. That was a case of product liability, and the jury was stupid for awarding anything to that moron for cutting his thumb off. Table saws do not generally come with skin-sensing devices, and adding them costs a lot, more than most low-end saws are actually worth. (A typical low-end saw costs $100. The SawStop technology all by itself costs more than that.) There shouldn't be an expectation that everything be made as completely safe as technology allows, without cost being taken into account. If we did that, there simply wouldn't BE any low-end products available. If we applied this thinking to cars, then no car would ever be sold for less than $100,000 because the state-of-the-art for safety technology would require this as a minimum price.

If someone gets elective cosmetic surgery, develops an infection, and ends up with disfiguring scars is that the doctor's fault?

This depends on the doctor's actions. Every surgery carries the risk of infection and complications. I'm not saying that doctors should be liable for everything that could possibly happen, only gross negligence (like amputating the wrong limb). If the doctor did everything according to the expected standard, then they should not be found at-fault in a case like this.

Does this person deserve a multi-million dollar payout?

Again, this completely depends on the circumstances. If you have elective surgery and get an infection even though no fault can be found with the doctor or medical facility, then tough. That's why you avoid surgery unless you really need it. The payout is supposed to be related to the level of negligence, and the severity of the ensuing drop in quality-of-life. Little or no negligence = little or no payout. Gross negligence = big payout and doctor unable to practice again. At least, that's the way it should work.

Malpractice suits aren't all about the obvious things like botched amputations or tools and sponges left in the body. There are plenty of idiots out there who contributed to their own misery and expect someone else to pay.

I agree. The system needs to be fixed so the idiots don't get giant payouts. But it also needs to be fixed so that botched amputations and other gross errors result in the doctor never practicing again, and we don't currently do that. There's many doctors out there who have done such ridiculous things, and they're still practicing.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[IICV]

Employer provided health insurance is literally the worst of all possible health care provisioning systems. As far as I can tell, it has no upsides whatsoever.

• It kills non-employer provided insurance: since a large proportion of all people are employed, they already have health care through their job; why would they shop around for anything else?
• It destroys competition: a company will not change insurances lightly, since there will be a ton of paperwork and the employees will suffer through the transition. This means that the insurance you provide can be relatively shitty, as long as it's not bad enough that HR decides something needs to be done.
• It artificially inflates the cost of insurance: because the cost is paid by the company, not the individual people, there's no need to try to keep costs down; the company itself will just pay the increased rates and pass that on to its employees as "no raise for you!"
• It makes the labor market far more viscous: my job sucks, but I can't just quit and start looking for a new one! Lisa needs braces! Sure, there's COBRA, but because of the previous point that shit is horribly expensive since now that you no longer have any income, you're paying both your part of the insurance and the company's.
• It makes entrepreneurship that much more dangerous: you can't leave your job to start a new company, because you'll lose your health care; COBRA (besides being ridiculously expensive) just doesn't last that long. Do you think you could go from zero to health insurance in six months? No? Then you better have a shitload of money in the bank, because if you break your arm while setting up the new company you are fucked. Or hope really really hard that your city/county/state has something set up.
• It defeats the purpose of insurance, which is to spread risk around. If there are a hundred people in my office, that's a hundred people that will be exposed to the swine flu or whatever if it comes through the office; that's a hundred people who will be caught in the next earthquake or wildfire or flood or blizzard or hurricane or bombing or whatever; that's a hundred people who will be extra stressed at company-wide crunch times, a hundred people who'll eat the slightly off pizza they served at the last company meeting, a hundred people using the same filthy microwaves and refrigerators. That's a hundred people whose risk factors are highly interdependent, because they all work in the same office. That is not how you spread risk around.
• IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL. Why should your health insurance be linked to your job? Sure, it's understandable for high-risk occupations like lumberjacks or firefighters, just like it makes sense for taxi companies to sponsor car insurance for their drivers. Beyond that, it's just ridiculous. How would you like to lose your car insurance if you lost your job? To lose your house insurance if you decided to start a new company? It just fucks people who are already in a delicate situation even more.

Basically, anything would be better than employer sponsored health insurance. The current American plan seems to be encouraging people to move away from that and towards buying in to group policies on an individual basis, which would be a far better system.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, I should have clarified that, as that's true.

But the rules are pretty lax; if there's any evidence of forced entry, you're free to shoot them. But if there's no such evidence, and you know the person, you might get in trouble as a case could be made that you probably invited them in. I was really referring to intruders who you don't know breaking and entering. You don't need to stop and see if they're armed, like the morons from liberal states try to tell us. You're allowed to shoot them. I recommend a shotgun; it's easier to shoot accurately, don't require precision aim, and the projectiles don't penetrate walls as easily.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[plague911]

EHHHHH "While some of those resources are limited in some areas, that's hardly the case across the country." I hate to tell you but even us lefties disagree with you on that. Im lucky I lve near the great lakes. But due to global climate change. Fresh water likely stands to be a very very scarce resource within a few decades.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[couchslug]

Xenophilia is so prevalent that any real border security effort is doomed unless driven be economic desperation. There is no knee-jerk opposition to my argument. It is _naturally_ opposed by xenophiles, and that's always been a clear majority of Slashdotters. The idea of wanting to actually benefit from ones own country instead of giving it away to everyone else is offensive to them.

Because so many recent arrivals (legal and illegal) will demographically benefit FROM unrestricted immigration of their fellows, and those who would benefit from restriction are conditioned not to advocate it, security efforts won't go very far. Latin Americans have more logical interest in open borders than restriction, for example. I realize that any efforts to protect exclusivity are eventually doomed, but I'll settle for a delaying action so I can benefit from that. If Socialism lasts long enough to take care of me, those who want it afterwards that can fight over the scraps in their race to the bottom. Government resources are infinite....right? :)

The other sticky part is that because a diverse society doesn't have any common cultural ground, it requires a police state to maintain order. The demands by Americans for security from the mob their open borders let in are driving the police state Slashdotters fear. Choices have consequences.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[delvsional]

Actually That depends on where you are. Here in Florida, you'd be perfectly justified. If someone breaks into your home, what makes you think they're not going to threaten you? It's called the castle doctrine. Look it up.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[plague911]

No but if our manufacturing base had not collapsed(because of cheap labor) we could have built machines to do it for almost as cheap.. and supported higher paying jobs at the same time

Re:And what's the problem here?

[RevWaldo]

Too right - a mandatory national ID that also affirms your right to leave the country strikes me as having the right karmic balance.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[walterbyrd]

Just goes to show what happens when you allow unfettered immigration. Eventually the immigrants will claim they are the rightful owners. When that happens, you lose your land, your language, your culture. The natives become the second-class citizens.

It happened to the Native Americans, centuries ago, it's happening to the in-the-true-sense-of-the-word "natives" now (you are a native to the land where you were born).

Re:And what's the problem here?

[winwar]

"Actually, you should ask your doctor what his "cash price" is. Many doctors will give you a giant discount if you pay cash, ..."

And the typical response is "What is the name of your insurance company". Seriously. Most staff can't comprehend the concept of patient paying in cash (doctors don't deal with payment issues). And their "discount" when you finally get through to them is "list price".

Re:And what's the problem here?

[hairyfeet]

Reminds me of dialog Joss Whedon put in Buffy "You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story."

As for TFA? We Americans really REALLY don't like any of that "show us your papers" bullshit, and this smells a LOT like show us your papers. How well is this gonna fly when you already have groups like the oath takers recruiting from the military and arming up like WW III is scheduled for next Tuesday? Who knows, but I bet it ain't gonna be pretty.

And what exactly do they think this will fix? As long as companies can hire illegals for pennies and get away with not having their business confiscated when they get caught it simply makes good business sense to hire them for chump change and fuck your fellow Americans. Go to any construction site in the south and yell "immigra" and see what happens...you've never seen a job site turn into a ghost town so fast in your life. As long as companies can get away with that and not lose their business this is gonna do exactly jack and shit about illegals.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[RoccamOccam]

No, someone who had the wrong leg amputated deserves a giant payout. There's no such thing as an excessively large damage award; if you screw up, you need to pay.

I've never liked the idea of limiting damages. However, I've often wondered if another approach to tort reform might be viable. It is my understanding, that the two principle awards in malpractice cases are compensatory damages and punitive damages. Both of these types of awards certainly have their place, but I see no particular reason why the plaintiff (and lawyer) should receive any of the money awarded for punitive damages. Punitive damages should be awarded simply to deter improper future behavior by the defendant or others. It's a social thing.

Therefore, I suggest that punitive damages be paid to society as a whole (in some fashion). If a plaintiff still wants to go after punitive damages, because he feels that it is important to do so, then by all means, have at it. But he and his lawyer won't see any of that money (except perhaps some nominal amount to cover legal fees). I would suspect that this would go a long way toward providing substantive tort reform, without capping compensatory damages.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DeadChobi]

Because Digital Rights Management has sure demonstrated that it's possible to create something that's impossible to fake or defraud in any way.

In other news, now that the federal government has legislated away your right to choose for youself whether you want health insurance, expect them to make other critical health decisions for you, like whether or not you should floss, how much food you're allowed to eat, whether or not you should really have that extra donut, and other wonderful decisions.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

But your right, it's not like the US has a precedent of have laws like that.

I'm not sure that I agree with GP, but I think this is fallacious reasoning. Looking at the history over the last 80 years or so, the US has been removing each and every one of those, with no signs of regression. Your statement is like saying...

When you were six, you stole a candybar
When you were twelve, you stole a pack of cigarettes
Now that you're in your thirties we'd best not let you lock down the store at the end of the day, given your history of theft.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Akira Kogami]

Agreed. Why don't we just eliminate medical science all together? We're all gonna die anyway, who cares if it's at 20 or 85? We're all fucked, right?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Erm... "over the last hundred years or so"... my mind is stuck in the 80s. (Excepting prohibition, which didn't last very long... )

Re:And what's the problem here?

[medcalf]

So you're OK with using this card as voter ID at the time and place of voting, also? Right?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Cwix]

I don't like the credit bureaus having so much information on me. Its not something I can change. I choose friends I can trust, don't use facebook or other similar sites. I commonly fill out my address as "123 Yeah Right Blvd." and I have a phone number of 555-555-1234. I prefer to keep my information, esp info that can be used to steal my id, as private as possible, the less I write it down, the less I speak it over the phone, the less I send it over the Internet, the fewer people who see it. I might not be able to completely hide it from everyone, but Id like to keep the people who do have this info to a minimum. The only security for personal info we have in todays world is security by obscurity. I would appreciate it if people stopped trying to remove my only form of protection from the ne're do wells.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Angst Badger]

As it is today, any PI or other motivated individual can pull up a buttload of personal information on you for a couple of hundred dollars.

For considerably less than that, I can already pull up a "buttload of personal information" on you or anyone else, quite likely including your SSN, and you can do the same to me. If you're willing to physically go down to the county courthouse where I was born or where I currently reside, you can get a lot more. That boat has already sailed.

The idea that hiding ID information will somehow protect us is, in any case, an appeal to security through obscurity. Just as it takes more than your account number to log in to your account at your bank's website, the answer is to separate security from any single identifier. That you can harm me, or that I can harm you, with just an identifier says nothing about the identifier, but it speaks volumes about the shoddy security of systems that use the identifiers. You could have separate identifiers in each place without significantly increasing the security of any of them or all of them, as it's usually trivial to connect ID x to ID y.

We don't need a "gargantuan mess of privacy laws" to avoid the problem. What we do need is a legal framework wherein the entities that handle our personal information are legally liable for breaches of their security. If we continue with the current situation, where -- for example -- a major bank can announce the compromise of millions of customers' information without being held legally responsible, there will be no significant incentive for them to improve their security. Which identifiers are used or not used has no real effect on the current artificial corporate impunity.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jaysyn]

Not in Florida, thank DEITY$.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Cwix]

You guys get temp IDs? Every time I've had to get a drivers license (Georgia, Alaska, Nebraska) they printed them on the spot, instead of waiting a week, I waited an extra 5 min.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[LostCluster]

We're already using driver's licenses for that in some places, and I know it's old local people with good memories staffing the checklists at my polling place. You're allowed to hide what you vote, but you're not allowed to get a ballot without people knowing who you are and them seeing you're still on the list. Anything that prevents double-voters is a good thing.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[arb phd slp]

So neighbors helping fellow citizens is okay and expected, but it's not the "responsibility of government" to do so? How are you reconciling these two things since they are actually the same thing?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[medcalf]

Not in Texas, or Virginia, or about 30 other states. Oh, guy was in your house? Life's a bitch for him, then. And believe me, you wouldn't want it otherwise. Look at England's recent history of home invasions after disarming the populace if you think you would.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DeadChobi]

So I'm confused. If you're saying you would rather it be at the expense of your life, then are you saying it would be okay for an illegal alien to enter the country but only on the condition that they shoot you first?

Or are you saying that you would rather we all die for the sake of everyone else in the world who is also dead at the hands of your philosophy?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[CrimsonAvenger]

No, someone who had the wrong leg amputated deserves a giant payout. There's no such thing as an excessively large damage award; if you screw up, you need to pay.

Yep. On the other hand, suing your doctor because your baby was born with a birth defect has happened a time or two as well. That's the area we need to focus on eliminating - the stupid lawsuits....

Re:And what's the problem here?

[lamppost]

Your history is a little off. 100 years ago we DID need quotas and we DID enforce them. Certain groups wanted cheap labor from Eastern Europe and China to stop flowing into the US. These immigrants managed to build the US infrastructure and ridiculously low wages however, after the work dried up then the problem started. As per your assertion that one low skill job a century ago could support a family, the comparison is unfair to make. These unskilled jobs at the turn of the 20th century were mostly manufacturing jobs where the manufacturer basically owned the workers. They lived in company housing and were paid with company currency where they bought everything they needed at the company store.

"You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company sto' "

The family supported itself by hiring out their children and their spouses. It's a myth the an unskilled laborer could "support" their family with the quality of life that you might expect in this recent decade. This has nothing to do with business friendly politicians, the 19th and 20th centuries were far more business friendly than the environment they currently operate in, although the role of businesses have changed quite extensively.

 

Re:And what's the problem here?

[LostCluster]

DRM usually falls to a high-value not-enough-security problem where it's worth it to break and unlock the system preventing all DVDs from being ripped, or to unlock the iTunes or PlayForSure universe of music... DirecTV's had their problems with encryption cracks historically too, but digital cable has never had a widespread outbreak because the CableCARD encryption key can vary from place to place and at most you'll get one channel in one area per crack, no worth doing for most hackers.

See, here's the thing... it's a ratio of value of what you get over difficulty of getting it that decides if a hack is "profitable." If it isn't, you don't see it falling.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DeadChobi]

Could you source some data for your comment? Otherwise it's at least as valid as your opponent's unsourced comment, and it seems less plausible under the example of an illegal alien obtaining employment through identity theft, and their subsequent ability to force another person to take on their personal tax liability.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Employer provided health insurance is literally the worst of all possible health care provisioning systems. As far as I can tell, it has no upsides whatsoever.

It had one upside. It allowed people to get around the wage controls in place during WW2. Which, in fact, is why we have employer provided health insurance at all.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Firethorn]

After a couple of thousand years, you'll find it pretty hard to locate someone who isn't at least part celtic. Finding someone who isn't part native American in the USA is a lot easier.

Not as easy as you might think. I look white-bread american, but I had a great-great grandmother who was Native American. Don't remember what tribe off the bat, but it's there.

Most who doesn't have Native American would be the more recent immigrants.

Beyond that, you start digging into history, it's not like the Native Americans were all that nice either - they had a lot of wars themselves, some of which were over territory. They might not have had a concept for individual ownership of land, but they did know territories and resources.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[LostCluster]

The problem with the "I'm so healthy I don't need insurance!" crowd is that there are some unfortunate people who acquire the dreaded "preexisting condition" while they're uninsured, which leads to those people basically having to pay full rate until their bankrupt, then those of us who have insurance have to pay more because the hospital has to get the money for treating these people from somewhere...

I'm an American. And getting those fleecing me for a free ride to pay their share was my idea.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DeadChobi]

The founding fathers left a massive loophole in the constitution by declaring you have a right to life. You don't have a right to life, you have a right to live your own life.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[LostCluster]

Watergate wasn't supposed to be made public (thats why he used to name 'Deep throat') and made it public anonymously.

The Washington Post reporters became famous for what they were reporting, and their "Deep Throat" source was known to them. The Post knew who they were dealing with, and chose not to identify their source to protect him.

It's hard to send an anonymous tip to a news organization. They'll want to know who you are and why you know what you're saying is true. They might be willing to protect you by withholding your name... but that's their decision.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Cwix]

Alright follow along with me here

1) Hospitals can turn no one away

2) Poor people when sick enough, go to hospitals

3) Poor people do not pay bill, because, well they are POOR (if its their fault for being poor is a moot point, nothing up to this point can you change)

4) Hospitals have to absorb the lost money

5) Hospitals have to be bailed out by... *drumroll*... Your right they are bailed out by taxpayers. Most hospitals are pretty consistantly getting help from taxpayers of one form or another

Heres the question: Would I rather pay for a poor person to go see a doctor, find out they have an infection, get a weeks worth of antibiotics and be out what 300 dollars? Or would I rather pay for the poor person to suffer until they cant bear it, call 911, ambulance ride, emergency room, iv antibiotics, and whatever else they need. Which do you think would be cheeper? (This logic would also include illegals, you pay their indignant care, right along with the poor people). I know it sucks, you got yours, you went to school got a good job, and can afford it. Now, stop and think for a second. If you had not gotten the opportunities you got, you might be in that poor persons shoes. Honestly, is sending poor people to the doctor that abhorrent to you?

Think about this too, if your poor and have to go to the hospital, and you cannot pay for whatever reason, it goes on your credit score. Now when you try to find a decent job, so you can pay back the bill, your screwed as almost all decent jobs check credit reports.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jodka]

Then when you get cancer you're fucked-

HINT:

We're ALL fucked.
We're ALL going to be wormfood.
What difference does it make if you die of cancer at age 80, or like my grandma, get chemo and postpone the cancer until age 84. In the end, we're all fucked.

Why don't people get this? Are they in denial?

Because, just like you, they want to live. That you express indifference to the death of others makes you a sociopath, not a social philosopher. You criticize others for prolonging their own lives while you prolong your own. If you disagree with that assessment then you could prove it wrong by killing yourself immediately.

Note that I do not endorse that kind of thing and was making strictly a rhetorical point; You should not actually kill yourself. You should be less hypocritical.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DeadChobi]

So are you saying that because he didn't make a good decision he doesn't ever get to make decisions at all?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[dkleinsc]

Actually, as Eddie Izzard point out, their real problem was a lack of flags.

We stole countries with the cunning use of flags. Just sail around the world and stick a flag in.
"I claim India for Britain!"
They're going "You can't claim us, we live here! Five hundred million of us!"
"Do you have a flag ?"
"No..."
"Well, if you don't have a flag, then you can't have a country. Those are the rules... that I just made up!"

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Firethorn]

Hostile intent doesn't mean you have the right to lethal force in any state. It would allow you to attack him certainly, and probably threaten him with a gun, but not to shoot him without further provocation. Which doesn't mean you wouldn't get away with it with a conservative jury and a good lawyer,

You need to study up on usage of force laws. Pretty much any usage of force can be played into being potentially lethal, thus the only time you're allowed to use force is in fear of your life or serious injury. At which point, whether you're being threatened by bare fists or a gun, you're allowed to use any and all levels of force* to stop it. Whether that's shooting them, braining them with a shovel/hammer, running them over with a car, to name just a few examples.

There are many states in the Union where you wouldn't even be charged. It'd almost be like a checklist:
1. Subject was shot in shooter's legal residence: Y
2. Subject had no legal right to be in shooter's residence at the time of the shooting: Y
3. Subject had an 'extensive' criminal record, with history of B&E and/or violence: Y (Nice, not necessary. If present, don't bother checking additional factors)

Result: Thank the shooter, remove the body, and head back to the station to fill out the reports.

*Without getting silly

but the idea of excessive force exists pretty much everywhere.

I'd be very, very careful about wandering around outside your home state then. Then again, as long as you're not breaking & entering you're pretty much safe. Personally, I think you need to look up the castle doctrine and self defense laws - in many states a stranger breaking into an occupied home is an automatic assumption of hostile intent such that lethal force is authorized.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a self defense proponent. I don't advocate shooting anybody who doesn't present an imminent threat to life or limb, but being familiar with self defense laws is a must in my position.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[kenh]

They didn't have a flag! (Eddie Izzard can explain for you here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8 )

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jhp64]

Please stay away from Arizona. I like the law here a lot, why do you want to protect the intruder?

snip

Also look at gun control stats and you will find that anywhere in the US that has increased gun control there is an increase in criminal behavior and places with less gun control usually have much lower rates of crime

snip

(Phoenix is number 2 in the WORLD for kidnappings, Mexico City is the only other city in the world with more)

I don't understand: if the law is so great in Arizona, why are there so many kidnappings there?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[medge_42]

You're right in that I could be saying that, but I think my reasoning isn't fallacious, facetious maybe, but not fallacious.
It would be wrong if you could garantee no more restrictive laws based on reactionary law makers.

Patriot Act? Freedoms restricted under the guise of protecting freedoms.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Firethorn]

And stealing a few hundred dollars worth of stuff isn't sufficient provocation to be worth taking theirs.

How much do you make an hour? Are you sure it's only a 'few hundred'? That they're only after your stuff, not to cause harm to you or your family?

Somebody steals $400 worth of stuff from me it's like stealing a week of my life. And my deductible is $500, so it's not like 'insurance will cover it'.

I get a lot of people like you, I think that the fundemental difference is that you're looking at it like an execution - the homeowner is acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Others look at it as self defense, they're defending themselves from potential harm.

Finally, there's the arguement that sure - you value human life. But the flip side is that the home intruder values his own life so little that he's willing to risk it over a 'couple hundred'. Could be a couple thousand if you have jewelry in the house. Sometimes they'll look to beat you to disclose where you keep further cash, or to disclose bank cards and pins so they can get even more money out of you.

Threatening with a gun maybe, but the problem with threatening with a gun is that if he calls your bluff you have no choice but to shoot him or retreat (which may not be possible)- its better to just attack with non-lethal weapons.

Beat a criminal with a bat without justification for using lethal force and you'll find yourself up on assault and battery charges. If you're actually in that situation, you should use the most effective means available - in my case that's a gun.

Another point would be that studies have shown that confrontations with guns actually tends to lead to fewer injuries to all parties - criminals that will argue with a bat, pepper spray, or taser won't argue with a gun.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jackbird]

Well, the alien who obtains employment through ID theft isn't going to be claiming a federal refund with his/her stolen SSN, although it's plausible that employers who know they're hiring an illegal are simply pocketing the witholdings instead of sending them to the government. Even if they claim 99 exemptions on the W4, Social Security and Medicare are still going to be witheld for someone who is never going to be taking a payout from either system.

Not data, I know, but at least a plausible scenario. Certainly more plausible than the IRS a) happening to audit the person whose SSN was stolen and b) not realizing upon said audit what actually happened.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Firethorn]

Hispanics aren't pure native american. They're also descendants of immigrants from Spain and Portugal and such.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

I'd say that sometimes the social contract needs to be rewritten, and this may include changing or reducing of rights. This should only be done carefully and for items of great importance, and should be done transparently. For example, income tax. Does the value of the freedom not to pay income tax outweigh the value of the things income tax can pay for? As a society we weighed this and decided it does not.

Rights are frequently like that. We reserve the rights to life and the right to privacy. Enforcing the right to life (tracking down murderers) frequently comes in conflict with the right to privacy. To what degree does each trump the other? Life is complicated. It's a good theory to say it should always increase, but in practice its unworkable. Instead, decreases should be scrutinized, evaluated, and decided on as a society. Although don't decrease is a good rule of thumb that even I try to follow- for example I'm against banning of gun ownership even though I think that the 2nd ammendment does not apply to individuals because we've treated it as if it does for 2 centuries. You need a strong reason to counteract that. On the other hand I have little trouble with fairly applied taxes- I don't think you have a right to increase in wealth.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Firethorn]

somebody whispers): "Insurance is now mandatory."

Ahhhh sh

Healthcare savings plan and high deductible insurance.

You still pay your doctor via 'cash', well, debit card, for normal things, but you're now covered if you get something catastrophic.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

Ok, I'm stealing this line :)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[sjames]

You don't get to take that just half way. If you reject the obligation to provide health care, you must also get out of my way if I choose (or must) do it for myself. That means no more prescription limitations of any kind, including opiates. It would also mean completely de-regulating the practice of medicine (to allow a truly free market). Otherwise all you're actually doing is constructively forbidding the lower economic classes from getting medical care at all.

Feel free to enjoy your non-certified, non-licensed medical care with your untested pharmaceuticals.

We already have far too many laws, rules, and regulations for a responsible able-bodied adult to be able to do what's necessary when they need medical care without landing in jail.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[CrimsonAvenger]

They tried. We had better weapons, for the most part.

Once upon a time in MA, there was a war between the local Indians and the assorted Puritans who had bought land from the Indians (an example of the greatest con in history - the Indians sold land they didn't even own).

This was just about the first real war in the New England area. The interesting thing was that the Indians were better armed than the Puritans. The Indians used flintlocks while the Puritans used matchlocks.

And where did the Indians get flintlocks? They bought them from the Puritans with some of that money they got from selling land they had no clear title to....

Alas, when it came right down to it, better weapons weren't sufficient to let the Indians kick Puritan ass.

Long story short - the Puritans won, the Indians lost.

Note also that when the Indians of the Great Plains acquired guns, they generally acquired better guns than the US Cavalry were using (the US Cavalry were still using single-shot rifles up to the Spanish-American War). The Indians still lost....

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Firethorn]

and it only costs them $10 to get here

Most Coyotes I've heard reports about charge a couple thousand per head.

I wasn't for the fence, fences don't work against smart people - I mean, look at the measures a high security prison needs to have to prevent escapes, and that's with inmates who have limited access to tools and supplies.

Personally, I'd revamp employment laws to make it harder for illegals to get work, revamp immigration to make it easier to legally immigrate, then toss violators into prison camps for a year to make sure they're not making money trying to work here illegally. Then the illegal problem will decline a bit.

Oh, and do something to fix Mexico's and Central/South America's domestic problems.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, just like vampires.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jketch]

This is a false choice. We are fully capable of providing chemo to the 25 year olds and to grandma. Now yes, there is a cost-years of life ratio beyond which it just doesn't make sense to pay for the treatment. But chemo is, IMHO, squarely on the "worth it" side for just about anyone who would benefit from it. The ONLY possible exception are the $50k/year still on patent biologics. And even then, $50,000 is well worth an additional year of life. So I'm happy to chip in for others in that situation with the understanding that they'll have my back if I ever need it.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DeadChobi]

That's the same attitude that perpetuates the modern socialist state, that we hold someone's life to be inherently sacred, but not the things that allow them that life. That we do not hold a person's food, shelter, or clothing sacred but that we hold his every breath sacred as if breathing were not made possible by any of those things.

It is a travesty that you believe anyone should be allowed to take anything of mine as long as they don't perpetrate physical violence upon me.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[QuantumRiff]

I love how several of my family members (who have never been north) scream about how they don't want us to get anything like that HORRIBLE SOCIALIST healthcare like canada has, which kills people, and keeps you on waiting lists for years to see a doctor. They think I'm ignorant, and listen to MSM (they love that abbreviation) and just don't understand what they know.

Meanwhile, several of my coworkers, who are actually FROM Canada and here for college/work, tell me how much they miss canada, and can't wait to get back to its health system, cause ours is the most seriously fucked up thing ever.. One had a good point.. We spend hundreds of billions educating the next generation, but hardly anything to bother keeping those kids alive to use that education...

Re:And what's the problem here?

[lsatenstein]

In Canada, all workers illegal or otherwise, have to pay into healthcare. So, illegals are entitled to healthcare benefits. Being illegal is separated from the right to pay for healthcare and receive healthcare benefits. It is so so extremely rare that someone who would never be accepted for for immigration because of an illness (such as HIV), will be able to avoid being detected for immigration. Healthcare professionals only want to see my medicare card, which is not tied to my birth certificate or passport. If you have not paid into healthcare, you have to pay cash.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Vellmont]

This makes it mandatory for doctors to carry a heavy burden of insurance and that gets passed on to whoever is paying for the medical care.

Insurance is a very small part of the costs of healthcare. I've heard in the neighborhood of 3%. Look it up at http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/RisingCostOfMedicalMalpracticeInsurance.htm

Doctors over-perform tests and over-prescribe drugs because of fear they may be sued.

Citation needed. You could also sue someone for over-prescribing drugs. There's not a lot of dis-incentive to order expensive tests, and a lot of incentive to do so. My father was sick about a year ago. He went to the hospital in FL and they ordered several tests (an MRI for one), gave him some anti-biotics and sent him on his way. He didn't get much better, went to the doctor who gave him a different anti-biotic and ordered tests, and sent him on his way. He came back to MN for the summer, called his doctor HERE, and was very quickly diagnosed with hyperthyroid-ism, likely caused by a heart medication he was on. He's doing much better after being prescribed some thyroid lowering medication which he's slowly being weened off of.

The point being, the quality of doctors makes a huge difference. Doctors who don't know what the hell they're doing can order up tests that are unlikely to show much of anything. MRI's are very expensive, but the blood work to detect his hyper-thyroid was extremely cheap. If the FL doctor knew anything, he'd have ordered the thyroid test.

The rest of your post I largely agree with. I'm not sure there's really many hospitals that are actually for-profit. The one thing that might reduce costs of health insurance is the tax on the "Cadillac health plan". The backers of the bill say it's a way to pay for the new coverage, but I think the real reason they put it in was so employers would stop offering these health plans. One of the problems of these plans is since there's zero cost in going to the doctor (not even a minimal co-pay) it encourages people to over-use health care. That may wind up reducing costs by discouraging over-use of the system.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Zancarius]

And what exactly do they think this will fix? As long as companies can hire illegals for pennies and get away with not having their business confiscated when they get caught it simply makes good business sense to hire them for chump change and fuck your fellow Americans. Go to any construction site in the south and yell "immigra" and see what happens...you've never seen a job site turn into a ghost town so fast in your life. As long as companies can get away with that and not lose their business this is gonna do exactly jack and shit about illegals.

That's what's so hilarious about this sort of proposal. If someone's here illegally, no sort of national ID card is going to do a damn bit of good. Chances are, no one's going to check it--especially (as you pointed out) at construction sites. They need labor, and if someone can lift a hammer, they're hired. It doesn't matter what their card says.

Of course, they could always make it a requirement to have a national ID card before you can purchase food. Or better yet: Let's limit fraud in health care by denying care to people who don't have a card (the politician who thought he'd get more votes by denying care to someone laying bleeding on the streets probably won't last long). That'll be the fastest way to make everyone on the right think "666."

Insofar as papers go, it's unfortunate but I think that's where we're heading. Once upon a time, I could travel between towns here in the southwest without having to stop (often) at checkpoints. Following 9/11, I can't go 80 miles without having to stop and answer 20 questions about where I'm going and why I'm going there. Sadly, extending powers to (and I suppose the creation of) the DHS has effectively turned us into a "show me your papers" country. That won't ever change.

I suppose it's due to the German airforce presence at a local airbase. Even though I do have some native American in me (and a bazillion other things, mostly European), being the pasty geek type must make me look more German than anything else to most of the border guards. Although, I've yet to really understand what threat the guards might see from someone they believe is European...

On a slightly related note (but most certainly not European): The one time I followed a Canadian couple driving an RV was fascinating. The guards grilled them for about 10 minutes.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jketch]

I'm not even convinced that this would bring down total health costs, much less improve the "added health value" we get per healthcare dollar. The problem with covering catastrophic care, but not routine expenses is that you substantially distort health care economic decisions for the consumer.

Consider an individual striving to maximize their utility by adjusting their healthcare purchases as they try to decide whether to go in for a routine physical at the doctor. Now there are two main factors affecting their utility, the monetary cost of something, and the health outcome. In other words, getting advanced cancer is bad both because you get sick and possibly die and because the treatment costs money.

Now, there are good reasons to believe that the dollar value of health increases as one gets richer. After all, it's a lot easier to justify a $50k operation/medicine course if you're just giving up your fifth car than it is if you're giving up four years salary. And this effect should apply to pretty much all health-money trade-offs.

Now back to the matter at hand. For the rich, it probably doesn't really matter if routine medical care is covered, as they are willing to pay a lot of money for a single unit of health, so they will pretty much do more or less whatever gives them optimal health.

The poor make a more interesting case. They will tend to value money much higher relative to health than do the rich. Now in the fully insured case money will not be an issue, so they will behave in the same way as the rich. The fully uninsured case is also fairly uninteresting, they will attempt to maximize their utility for whatever health-money trade-off they have. In the limiting case, they will begin to go in for routine checkups only insofar as it prevents health expenditures later. (We assume here that individuals will do everything in their power to stay alive.)

Now suppose one of these individuals has a policy that covers only catastrophic care. Suddenly, the monetary loss associated with diseases such as cancer disappears (or is reduced depending on the specifics of the policy, it doesn't really matter). The point is that they will reduce their consumption of routine checkups, not only in comparision to the level which is associated with optimal health, but also the level which is associated with the minimum expected expenditure necessary to stay alive. These individuals will actually have increased total health expenditures compared to the fully insured case.

And this isn't just a hypothetical case, doing health screenings at local grocery stores, I've found plenty of people with blood sugars of 600 (meaning they had massively uncontrolled diabetes). Who didn't even know they had it. And these are people who DON'T have catastrophic insurance. If you give them only catastrophic insurance, economic incentives to be in that condition will only increase.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[TapeCutter]

I've read a lot of vile comments on slashdot that if implemented would send society back to the dark ages. However your vile comment takes the cake since it would set back the evolution of society at least 2 million years to a time when our pre-human ancestors did not attempt to take care of their elders.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[bXTr]

I'm not sure why Slashdot is so afraid of this. You don't have a right to be anonymous to your employer. You don't have a right to avoid taxes.

Your government and your employer do not have the right to treat their citizens and employees as criminals.

You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?

Everyone in this country is an illegal immigrant. You or your ancestors, either willingly or by force, came here from somewhere else. In fact the so-called Native Americans are neither. They came here from somewhere else long ago. No one is from here; you simply are here.

We already drive around with standardized (yet customizable non-materially) license plates on our cars. You already need proof of government permission and proof somebody's going to pay if you hit something to drive a car.

Following your logic, you don't have a right to a non-materially customizable license plate, whatever the hell that is, on your car. In fact, you don't have a right to a car.

You aren't supposed to be able to get on a plane anonymously...

Again, that is not an excuse to treat everyone as a criminal.

Let's not think of the things we'd be able to get away with with a fake id... and start thinking how we can make sure somebody else can't fake their ID for our mutual protection.

Your last comment is a total and complete non sequitur, so I'll just say this. This is totally unnecessary. We already have driver's licenses, Social Security cards, passports and birth certificates. We already have more than enough means of identification, and the government has more than enough information on us to do its job. If having a national ID card offered some obvious benefit to us, the ones who would be required to have it, I might feel different about it. As it is, there is none.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jketch]

I would mod you up if I hand't posted elsewhere in this thread. The provision requiring large employees to provide health insurance is one of the few (actually pretty much the only), provision I wish weren't in there, for the reasons you just describe. I understand the political necessities of it, but it doesn't' mean I have to like it.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[BlackBloq]

Except for the fact the the families of the displaced native Americans still live! Don't be calling it old hat like that when there are actual existing bands with self government! There is a total difference when the actual people still effected by this so called history still walk the land!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jketch]

To the extent that this happens at all, it's much more due to the fact that large insurance companies essentially come to doctors and say "we'll pay you 50% of your market rate and if you don't like it, all of our patients will go elsewhere." Some places (like the hospital where I am a student) are starting to get around that by giving a blanket uninsured discount rate. I'm not sure how insurance companies will respond to that, or if they'll even care. But to suggest that a profession still made up mostly of practices of less than a dozen physicians is centralized enough to collude in any meaningful manner is completely laughable. Now I agree that there is extreme sketchiness in the amount of power the AMA has to accredit new med schools, and how the specialties get to set the number of new members through their running of residencies. But that's a completely separate issue.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jketch]

I agree it is vasly preferable for people to enter through the legal mechanisms.

Except that those mechanisms have yearly caps. And demand far exceeds the caps placed. So for many individuals, especially th every poor, the choice is immigrate illegally or not at all.

If you still don't want them to come in, that is your right. But don't pretend that they're coming in illegally because they don't want to fill out some papers, pay their taxes, and wait a couple of months.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ooshna]

No just putting some reality into his always pay cash scheme.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jketch]

Because "might makes right" is such an excellent way to run the world.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jketch]

So you want to drop 20 million people in the middle of the desert without any supplies? Why not just line them up against a wall and shoot them? You'd save a lot on jet fuel and parachutes.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Timex]

You just got the right to healthcare

Completely false.

That huge mistake that the House and Obama managed to force through is a "law", and laws can be easily repealed. Laws in and of themselves cannot grant "rights", any more than a politician repeating the same old rhetoric makes what s/he is saying "honest".

The bits enumerated in the first ten amendments to the Constitution? Those are "rights", and cannot be (easily) repealed.

The "car insurance" story to justify what Congress just passed is a lie. Nobody is forcing you to use the public roadways, but if you do, the required level of insurance protects the other guy, not yourself. If you are driving on your own property, you aren't required to have insurance.

This "law", on the other hand, requires citizens to buy into a contract with a non-government agency (aka the health insurance company), something that has never been done before. If you fail to buy insurance for yourself, the IRS is authorized to penalize you. Call it what you will, but it is still "socialized medicine". It is not something that Congress is authorized to put into law, according to the Tenth Amendment.

At this writing, more than a dozen states are suing to challenge this bill, and if the SCotUS has any legitimacy left in it, they will pay attention and do something about it. If they allow this to remain in place, there will be hell to pay, and it won't be pretty.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[clarkkent09]

If the individuals in the government want to help somebody voluntarily with their own money than nobody can complain about that. But that's not what you are talking about. You are talking about the government taking money from person A using physical force (try not paying taxes) because it arbitrarily decided that person B needs it more. It doesn't make any difference if that government was democratically elected. Your property is not mine to vote on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0

Re:And what's the problem here?

[sharkbiter]

My house in NC was broken into at least 3 times. They cut the phone wires, they broke 3 doors worth of locks. I lost my washer and dryer, all my garden equipment, all of the records, tapes, CDs, computer equipment, stereo equipment and they even took a cheap wall clock and couch!

The damage that they did to my house was in the thousands. The material things that they took were in the tens of thousands. Insurance didn't cover but a fraction of it. I'm not angry.

What they did take was 20 years of memories and my awards and achievements for serving America as a member of the United States Air Force. That is what really hurt. For twenty years I defended the rights of Americans to freely worship, demonstrate, practice liberty and all the little things that make up America, only to have petty thieves steal the few mementos that I had for all my efforts.

I wish I could have been there to greet them as they broke down the door a second time with my 12 gauge (they took that too), cocked and loaded with 00 buckshot. To hell with them! I pray that there is a deity and he has a special hell for those people that destroyed my property, robbed me of my material possessions, caused me unwarranted mental anguish and took from me my piece of mind and belief that all humans are equal.

Those people aren't human, those inhuman bastards are lower than dirt, they're scum, there is no justification for their very existence. When I hear about how others stood their ground, or utilized castle law, I cheer.

You may mod me down now, thanks!

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Danga]

I don't understand: if the law is so great in Arizona, why are there so many kidnappings there?

I was waiting for someone to respond in that manner, I really hope you are just ignorant to the situation but I highly doubt that. Anyway, in case you are not aware the Mexican drug cartels are in the middle of some huge turf wars and it is spilling over into the border states such as ARIZONA. Drug cartel members are not afraid of law enforcement with fully automatic weapons so of course they are even less afraid of US citizens who are mostly only allowed to possess semi-auto firearms. Do you see my point of why I want firepower and to be able to use it without worrying about being sued now? I don't think these drug cartel members will run the other way if I try and spray them with pepperspray or hit them with a bat, a gun will make them think twice though.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[kimvette]

They invaded our country, and there needs to be severe consequences for such actions.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[cgenman]

Remember that while emergency rooms are required to treat you despite inability to pay, they're also going to bill the hell out of you for it. When my cousin was run off the road at age 28, she had extensive but treatable health problems resulting from it. However, even just going on the emergency room care, she would have been bankrupted and lost her house, the insurance value of her car, and all of her savings. In essence, she would have been sent back to financial square 1, but this time without the ability to get approval on the more advanced financial instruments.

My fiancee had her kidney explode when she was 17. Her parents would have had to sell off their houses to avoid bankruptcy for that one.

Expensive health problems aren't just for the elderly.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[sydbarrett74]

We'll give our land back to the Native Americans, when you Europeans give back your land to the Native Europeans (Celts). That's right. Eject the Franks, the Dutch, Norsemen, Roman descendents and all the rest, and restore the land to the Celtics.

Actually the Basques were there before any of the groups you listed. Several genetic studies conclude that the Basques are the modern remnant of the Cro Magnon.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Timex]

Because I believe in the right to life. And stealing a few hundred dollars worth of stuff isn't sufficient provocation to be worth taking theirs. They're assholes and deserve to go to jail, but they don't deserve to die.

This is where the "shotgun" solution is best: The resident takes aim for the knees and seriously wounds the assailant, hopefully until the police arrive and take the stupid fool away.

The problem is that the accused could turn the tables and sue the homeowner for attempted murder. Depending on the jury, there's a possibility that the slimeball intruder could win.

Of course, if the homeowner were a really bad shot and, oh, I dunno, hit the chest (or above) "by accident", then the problem would be solved right there.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[nadador]

> We live in the present. The sons/daughters are not responsible for the sins of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfathers/mothers.

This would be true, if the crimes committed against American Indians were actually in the past. In my lifetime, the federal government (through the Indian Health Service) forcibly sterilized American Indian women:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v024/24.3lawrence.html

And by the way, I do believe the individuals are culpable for sins committed by the societies to which they belong, so we, collectively, as Americans, do bare the stain of those crimes.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Culture20]

Finding someone who isn't part native American in the USA is a lot easier.

Not in Mexico.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[lgw]

"Non-profit" doesn't mean what you want it to mean. There are indeed non-profit hospitals, and they often charge more and make higher gross profits than "for profit" hospitals. The difference is, they spend that money on hospital facilities or salaries (of senior administrators, of course), instead of paying it as a dividend to stockholders. In any case it hardly matters - almost every service provider in a hospital is a seperate company, which might be for profit even if the hospital itself were no-profit.

But all of that is beside the point. Profits are not evil! For a small business such as a doctor's office or a dentist's office, the profit is simply to doctors salary, and I want my doctor or dentist to be well paid! I want the best and the brightest to be motivated to choose those careers.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Crunchie Frog]

Just out of interest, does that mean you could invite over someone who you didn't like, invite them indoors and then just kill them? Because that seems a little worrying.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

I neglected to specify: If they came all at once, it would be a problem. We're more than capable of handling a few hundred million additional people, but without time for services and infrastructure to expand to deal with the influx, the system would be overwhelmed fairly rapidly. I'm not arguing for closed borders, I'm arguing for managed growth.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[cgenman]

I personally fail to see how a national ID card will make recreational drug use any less dangerous. Legitimate peacetime groups will still be spied on by the FBI. "Free speech zones" would be just as enforceable. Overly broad patents would still be issued daily. Censorship organizations will still take hypersensitive views of sexuality. The DMCA will still be squashing legitimate research. I still would have been put on the "search-before-every-flight" list in college, and they still would have sworn it didn't exist.

There would, however, be significant non-infringing uses. Personally, I've been on the receiving end of information database screw-ups so often that I'd be happy if the patchwork of information systems all glued together by the lowest bidder using elmers white and visual basic was a bit more robust. Keeping one license every time I moved would be nice, and never having to bring a passport "just in case" would be great.

And, of course, we'd need a national discussion on how such a system should work, and protections on how records should be kept and used. But honestly? The government is already doing it. They're doing it now. They're doing it poorly. They're screwing it up. I'd much rather we avoided things like the similar-name purges we saw in Florida by having an actually competent system. The alternative is exactly the same as not having a national ID card, except there isn't actually a discussion about safeguards, and anyone could be targeted due to the excessive numbers of mistakes.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Timex]

Within MA, there's about a dozen different varieties of "charity plates" where people pay a surcharge that is donated to the choice charity of the owners of a logo, such as a sports team or other group.

...and there's the (grandfathered) green-lettered plate and the current "default issue" red-letter plate.

It is my observation that most of the people in MA that don't display an ability to drive according to the law happen to have a green plate. (Considering there seem to be a lot of these in the area in which I live, this is not something I would classify as a statistical probability. As I said, it's an observation.)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[seyyah]

Drug cartel members are not afraid of law enforcement with fully automatic weapons so of course they are even less afraid of US citizens who are mostly only allowed to possess semi-auto firearms.

snip

I don't think these drug cartel members will run the other way if I try and spray them with pepperspray or hit them with a bat, a gun will make them think twice though.

snip

So if they aren't afraid of fully automatic weapons, what do you have that makes them think twice?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

That's a good analogy.

Regardingg your question about involvement of insurance for all treatment: The insurance company has negotiated a lower rate with the hospital. If you go in as a private individual without your insurance, the hospital is going to quote you a higher rate for everything. Thus, the insurance company ends up being involved in all transactions with the hospital, regardless of severity.

As wiredlogic said in another post: "Hospitals are able to milk patients with inflated fees for basic items."

Especially when lower fees have not been negotiated in advance.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[cgenman]

That's the fable. Any "right" that comes from society can be taken back, and that means it certainly isn't a right.... Yes, people can violate your rights, but the fact that they don't violate them doesn't mean they are the source.

How do you identify a "right" that can't be taken back, can't be changed by society, but can be violated freely by a society? At that point the concept is so ungrounded from reality that a "right" is anything that you personally identify as a right. When a societal rule conflicts with that identification, it is a violation. When someone else's identified "rights" that you disagree with are changed, it was just a privilege.

At that point, you might as well have declared that you personally have a right to own nuclear weapons and manifest blueberry pancake mix out of thin air.

There is really only 3 basis for beliefs: provable facts of existence, beliefs rooted in societal lore, or beliefs rooted in direct personal experience. As what you're describing has no connection to provable facts or direct personal experience, what you're talking about is societal lore. And before you say 'God', please point to the part of the bible that explicitly states you have the freedom of speech.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Yo Steve! Wanna split this six pack and watch the game on BANG BANG BANG

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DrLang21]

I got the right to healthcare? I thought I got the mandate to either buy healthcare or to pay a tax that will cost me less than the healthcare would.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[CrashandDie]

I'm afraid that Plato wouldn't agree with you. If a person doesn't know what freedom is, they are unable to long for it. One of Plato's initial points is that if a person would have his head restrained, unaware of being able to move his body and such, he would not realise that he is being limited.

Another way to look at it would be to have someone live in a completely closed cell, day in, day out, without having ever known anything else before. Let's not think about feces (or assume the prisoner would understand the concept of a toilet), and that food would be delivered through a specific system.

If the prisoner, in this scenario never knows anything else, he could not imagine anything else. If there is nothing to provide an input to your senses (and that includes imagination), there is nothing to imagine. It is fair to assume that the prisoner would simply accept his condition, loneliness and fate as there are no alternatives.

If, however, you put a man in a cage, after he has tasted freedom, knows that he too posesses the physical ability to run about as he sees his captors do, know he would be able to run free again if he were not restrained by the cage, then yes, he would want freedom as well, however this is not the same. Wanting freedom is not an innate state of mind, if anything is innate in a human, it's the ability to want what others have, and to have the arrogance to be treated as fairly at least as well as anyone else.

Now, you say something quite interesting (paraphrasing) "you own what nature has given you, ie your body and the products of the labour your body is able to accomplish". Again, I agree with this but only to a point. Physical ability isn't what defines what you can and can't do, in most cases -- the Egyptians, Mayas and whatnot have proven this time and time again. What limits any individual, initially, is the ability to see, imagine, and drive the things their mind can come up with. In order to believe you can make a boat, your mind needs the crutches, the framework to come up with such an idea. If you are entirely free of thought and movement, this is fine.

If, however, again going back to the idea of limitation, one has been punished everytime he was creative, or everytime he was acting impulsive, or taking initiative, you can be sure that after a pretty short amount of time you can entirely crush one's spirit and mind.

To anyone who wants to interject: I am using Plato's hypothetical idea that you would limit a prisoner in such a fashion from the very first moment his mind or body is conscious. The human mind is something extremely powerful, and just a glimpse is enough to spark a lifetime of longing and faith; the hypothesis is that the isolation is utterly complete. Even though I'm pretty sure there are enough sick freaks who could imagine ways to have a human baby grow to be an adult without ever watching anything but a wall, live in a completely isolated room, or get beaten everytime it shows any manifestation of self, please, don't try this at home.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DrLang21]

With a proper government, people are a net resource

Key point, "With a proper government"

Re:And what's the problem here?

[cgenman]

So... the Greeks argued that any innate natural instinct was a form of right? By that logic we all have the innate right to:

Pee... and poop. (that's an important one)
Hump attractive things.
Scratch when it itches.
Kill competition for our mates.
Eat any food we come across.
Water, lots of water.
After a certain point, we have an innate right to More Heroin damnit.

Oh, so arguing by reductio ad absurdum isn't viable, you say? The Greeks had provisos, you say? Ok, so add Aristotle's philosophy of "moderate virtue," whereby you have to live yourself and your innate natures to the fullest, by tempering them all and only doing a moderate amount. Add in a healthy dose of societal "don't harm others." Ignore Greece's legendary Cyrenaic hedonism. Add a few touches of 'greatest good' socialism. A few snips and tucks here and there for whims of the time, and what do you get?

Obviously, you get innate rights that came exactly from nature, and not at all from what society at the time believes it means to be human.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[cekander]

It sounds like a society where illegal immigrants are second class citizens isn't working for your state. I don't doubt they kill cheat and steal. I would too.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DrLang21]

If I recall correctly, the Native Americans welcomed us with open arms. The English legally (on their terms) bought land from them. Shit didn't really hit the fan until around the mid 1700s (at least not in Pennsylvania or New York).

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Mitreya]

True enough. As far as I can tell, though, I have yet to be seriously harmed by my SSN. The data security provisions of my bank might be another matter, but my SSN is no more harmful to me than my name, my phone number, my dedicated IP address, or the primary keys assigned to me in any of hundreds of databases.

Clever. Yes - you haven't been seriously harmed. But my understanding is that home address + DOB + SSN is all it takes to "steal your identity" (or, rather, successfully impersonate you to get a credit card, etc). When someone does manage to get a credit card or a loan in your name, you will be harmed then.
The fact that the same number is used as a primary key, a student id and has to be given to every utility provider and at the same time is used as a reliable authentication method makes the system easy to compromise.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[IICV]

I have no problem with you spending whatever you want to keep your grandmother alive for another four years; however, as a matter of social policy, at some point it is simply not reasonable to have everyone else pay to keep her alive. Instead of just saying "that idea is vile!" or "death panels!" and ignoring it, we need to have an actual debate in this country as to what is reasonable in terms of keeping someone alive. 80 was simply a cutoff I pulled out of my ass; I would imagine that the actual limit would be something like a total expenditure for acute symptoms over a certain age - e.g, we'll pay for your glaucoma medication and your insulin for as long as you're alive, but there's no point in giving you chemo at 80 when that money could be put towards setting ten thousand broken bones or vaccines for a hundred thousand children.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[cekander]

too bad the lunatic fringe often are calling the shots.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DrLang21]

Also, I buy most if my produce at the local farmers market and buy my meat from a butcher. My grain and beans likely come from Mexico

Re:And what's the problem here?

[CrashandDie]

Randall Munroe should make a comic about Hollywood-inspired Slashdot comments.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Chris Burke]

What I mean is, your government, military, and police are corrupt and controlled by drug cartels.

Actually, local government and the police are, but the military and President are not. The Army are the ones cracking down on -- as in, getting in gun battles with -- the drug cartels right now, and are the ones who caught the cops red-handed working with the cartels.

But uh yeah, this is a two-way street we should all be familiar with. Drugs cross the border into the U.S. and sold for cash which is used to buy guns, which go back over the border. The gang bangers are using a lot of AR-15s when confronting the army. Where'd they get those?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Stormy Dragon]

The problem is that government databases aren't perfect. Every year Social Security declares several thousand people dead who aren't actually dead. Getting your status restored can take years. When they did a test run of a national ID database for the E-Verify program, the false positve rate (people declared non-citizens who actually were) was more than 6%. In a nation our size, that's more that 20 million people who would be banned from holding any job.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Arccot]

Why do we insist on having insurance companies pay for all our medical issues, which we then have to pay them for? This is all just make-work: huge companies that do nothing but process paperwork and shuffle money, taking some of it for themselves, and providing little value in the process (actually, they provide negative value in most cases).

The reason is because many people won't pay out of pocket for the preventive and minor care that would keep them from serious injury. In the end, pre-paying for preventative and minor care ends up cheaper because people use it instead of getting more ill later.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DrLang21]

While the police/state have no obligation to protect you from murder, you do have a right to not be murdered. Because if you are murdered, the state has the power within the federal law to murder the person that murdered you in retaliation.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[RoFLKOPTr]

Except that those mechanisms have yearly caps. And demand far exceeds the caps placed. So for many individuals, especially th every poor, the choice is immigrate illegally or not at all.

Doesn't fucking matter. There are people that have been on the waiting list for a year or more. Those people are people who actually want to come here, and live a full life as a productive member of a society that welcomes them. Anybody who is fit to live in the United States will get their chance to move here. Yeah, it takes a long time, but there's a lot of people trying to get here, so of course it's going to take a long time. What would Disneyland be like if everybody just skipped the line to get on Splash Mountain and just hopped on when they felt like it? Things would be fucked up, that's what.

Last year, I saw a presentation put on by Canal Alliance. The Canal district is an area in San Rafael, CA that has a very high percentage of hispanic residents, many of whom are illegal aliens. This presentation was mostly to tell a sob story. A very pathetic sob story that USES children to tug on people's heart strings. These children -- mostly girls -- told everybody about how scary the ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) raids are, and how they cry at night thinking about how people they know -- or perhaps their parents or other family members -- could be caught and deported at any time by ICE. It was pathetic... and people were gobbling it up.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The idea that hiding ID information will somehow protect us is, in any case, an appeal to security through obscurity.

Obscurity is a legitimate form of security in the right context. In this case, keeping domain specific identification prevents mass database cross referencing. The fact that the current system is already vulnerable is not an indictment of the solution, its a demonstration that the semi-centralized system we have today is already yielding privacy problems.

the answer is to separate security from any single identifier.

We don't need a "gargantuan mess of privacy laws" to avoid the problem. What we do need is a legal framework

You say potatoe, I say potato. I'll put my faith in a system that depends on the laws of physics over a system that depends on the laws of man any day of the week,

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DrLang21]

The rich? Wtf are you smoking? Yes California is far from mildly socialist. However, my family is far from rich and ever since I moved to California with my wife, the increase in spending on taxes that I have experienced is staggering. In spite of that, I receive none of these so called socialist benefits aside from unemployment, which pays less than I would have received where I moved in from, and does not pay enough to even pay my basic bills. It is slowing the inevitable if I do not find a job soon. In spite of being laid off twice in one year since I moved here, unemployment is the only program my family is eligible for. I suppose the upside is that with all of the taxes that have been sucked out of me (preventing me from building enough savings to sustain us for an extended period of time) I feel fully entitled to every penny I can suck back out of the government. Don't worry though. I'll be living on the streets before the government ever pays me more than I paid them.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

oops, unclosed bracket ate half of what I wrote...

The idea that hiding ID information will somehow protect us is, in any case, an appeal to security through obscurity.

Obscurity is a legitimate form of security in the right context. In this case, keeping domain specific identification prevents mass database cross referencing. The fact that the current system is already vulnerable is not an indictment of the solution, its a demonstration that the semi-centralized system we have today is already yielding privacy problems.

the answer is to separate security from any single identifier.

The problem is more than simple "harm" because everybody's definition of "harm" is different. Most people are not harmed by targeted marketing practices. Until the man with a vasectomy starts getting a lot of mailings advertising condoms and his wife starts to notice.

We don't need a "gargantuan mess of privacy laws" to avoid the problem. What we do need is a legal framework

You say potatoe, I say potato. I'll put my faith in a system that depends on the laws of physics over a system that depends on the laws of man any day of the week,

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Danga]

I should have said "a gun will make them think twice about continuing into the house" and you better believe they will be afraid when someone has the drop on them and they hear the pump of a shotgun pointed at their head. But I'm not going to have some stupid arguement over my word choice, in the end all I really care about is that an intruder is no longer a threat to me and my family, if they don't make the smart and my preferred decision and exit my house after a warning then I am fully prepared to bring things to the next level and shoot them dead, it is 100% the intruders decision. A firearm is the most powerful weapon I could have in that situation and since I always think "worst case scenario" I figure any intruder would have a firearm so I want to have the biggest advantage I can being having a firearm myself. What is wrong with that?

Please people stop with the pointless responses trying to look clever with the "snip snip" stuff, add something useful to this conversation please.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DrLang21]

Because this shit affects your life. The more the government or anyone else knows about you, the more they can use it against you, purposely or accidentally. The government at least here is notorious for using unrelated stupid shit to try and prosecute you for shit you didn't do or just because a cop is having a bad day.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[OrwellianLurker]

But uh yeah, this is a two-way street we should all be familiar with. Drugs cross the border into the U.S. and sold for cash which is used to buy guns, which go back over the border. The gang bangers are using a lot of AR-15s when confronting the army. Where'd they get those?

Where did they get those? We're not really sure. They do a shitty job of recording serials and running them. Either way, we can be safe assuming some of the guns come from America. If so, why don't they have better border patrol? I don't blame Mexico for smuggling the drugs. We have a huge border that is impossible to effectively guard. However, you can't blame one and then acquit another. Both are either guilty, or innocent. Also, I wonder if corrupt Mexican military officials have sold weapons on "the black market" or if they were stolen from the military. Wouldn't shock me.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Danga]

Well if they came here LEGALLY then maybe they wouldn't be treated as 2nd class citizens. If I entered any country on Earth illegally then I sure wouldn't expect to get the best treatment either, people have to play by the rules like most other people on Earth do. Also, illegal immigrants are a HUGE drain on society in the US, I won't get into it here but from the facts I have seen we would be much better off without them (many business owners may miss the cheap labor but screw them too). Follow the rules is all I ask.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[tirefire]

From parent:

As an American, I'm worried about the flow of Mexican narcotics such as methamphetamine to America (we have drug control you know?).

MOD PARENT DOWN. As someone who knows a thing or two about recreational drugs, I really have to chime in here. By discrediting your statements, I hope that any lurkers present will ignore your fallacious post.

1. Methamphetamine is NOT a narcotic. It is a stimulant of the amphetamine family. Narcotics (examples: morphine, heroin, hydrocodone) are sedating. I know this can be a confusing distinction because law enforcement handles methamphetamine offenses with officers who work "narcotics". Sadly, this is testimony to how unknowledgeable police agencies are about the true pharmacological properties of the drugs they control.

2. Many drugs (particularly cocaine) are smuggled into the United States across the US-Mexico border, but this does not necessarily apply to methamphetamine. Unlike, say, cocaine, which (practically speaking) must be refined from a plant that only grows in high-altitude South American climates, methamphetamine is very easy to synthesize domestically. The chemical processes by which legal chemicals such as pseudoephedrine (an over-the-counter nasal decongestant) can be converted into methamphetamine is very simple (even complete amateur chemists can do it) and can be performed with nothing more than household chemicals and legal laboratory glassware. Domestic methamphetamine production already helps supply the methamphetamine market in midwestern states. If Mexican drug cartels disappeared tomorrow, domestic production of methamphetamine would quickly increase to fill the void. This is not unique to methamphetamine, either. LSD is one of the hardest recreational drugs to synthesize, and clandestine LSD laboratories still exist within US borders.

What I mean is, your government, military, and police are corrupt and controlled by drug cartels. If as a country you decided to take car of your internal problems, then we would all be better off.

3. Mexico's internal problems with drug cartels exist largely because of US drug policy. If controlled substances like methamphetamine were freely available and taxed and regulated in the same way as alcohol and tobacco (as was the case for methamphetamine before the middle of the 20th century in the US), users would buy their methamphetamine from supermarkets, not criminal gangs. Today, law enforcement agencies at all levels of government PROFIT from illicit distribution of methamphetamine and other controlled substances. If you are a meth dealer and the government catches you, they seize your home, boat, car, and anything else they can argue was purchased from proceeds of distribution (this is called asset forfeiture). After seizing your property, police departments then sell these assets at police auctions and pocket the money to buy new equipment and pay their staff. Economically speaking, the biggest single beneficiary of sales of illegal drugs in the United States is the US government. If that's not government corruption, I don't know what is.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Rocketship Underpant]

"Pharmaceutical prices are unregulated, allowing excessive profiteering."

They're reverse-regulated thanks to a government monopolies that shuts out competitors. Eliminate or drastically reduce drug patent terms, and I guarantee competition and Wal-Mart will drive prices to a fraction their current height.

"Hospitals are allowed to operate for profit. WTF?"

Why the hell would anyone open a hospital and equip it with the latest equipment and best doctors, if he couldn't earn a profit from it?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[tirefire]

Forgot to mention - it is easy and even fun to find truthful information about methamphetamine.

If you'd like to learn about methamphetamine from a well-produced television drama that has won multiple Emmy awards, there's always Breaking Bad. The depiction of methamphetamine's effects on the human body, as well as the nature of the illicit methamphetamine market, is surprisingly accurate.

If you'd prefer a more scholarly source of information about methamphetamine (and just about any other recreational drug out there, including some real weird ones like Bromo-Dragonfly), Erowid is your place.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Neither. I'm saying that, if all things were fair, we would be conquered in the same way.

Things are not, and currently, I'm fine with that. ;-)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[TapeCutter]

It's your country not mine, my country had that debate in the 70's, as a result our health costs are ~1/10th of yours for a family earning $100K/yr and we no longer have to choose between grandma and bankruptcy.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jayveekay]

Pay your doctor when you're well, stop paying him when you're sick. - Ancient Chinese Proverb

Giving doctors a financial incentive for you to get ill and require treatment is a great way to create an expensive health care system.

Better approach: Pay your health care providers a flat annual fee for comprehensive wellness care. They get the same fee regardless of the number of procedures they perform, so their incentive is to keep you healthy (see "an ounce of prevention") and only do necessary procedures to restore your health.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[roman_mir]

Does the value of the freedom not to pay income tax outweigh the value of the things income tax can pay for? As a society we weighed this and decided it does not.

- except in case of USA it was not 'the society' that made that choice. This tax was imposed during the civil and then the first world wars supposedly to pay for participation and it was supposed to be a temporary measure.

It was not 'the society' that implemented it and it was not 'the society' that left the tax in there permanently, it were the politicians, who saw the money and could never ever let go of it ever again, so they made sure that it never did go away by always creating a 'need' for the tax to stay until everyone forgot that this was not constitutional and almost nobody was left who remembered how it was before that particular tax.

This was a violation of the rights of the people, but then the people were bullied into giving up this right, it was not a case of society agreeing on something.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DMiax]

And philosophy evolved a lot from the greeks, on. I suggest you to study it. As an extreme aspect of the opposite point of view study the concept of "social contract". This is more modern and at least comes from a time were philosophers had the notion of historical thinking.

As an additional exercise take one of your rights and find the historical age where it was considered good and just to violate it. Women's freedom/vote/safety from abuse? check. Habeas corpus? check. Private property? check. Freedom of religion? check. Racial equality? check. Please study history.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[SimonGhent]

We waltzed in here with guns ablazing intending to conquer this land and make it our own. We succeeded. This is our land now, and nobody has the right to be here but people we say have the right to be here. And that will be the case until another people do the same to us, which is not likely to happen.

Help me out here, is this a joke or a serious post?

Honest question, I'm really not sure, but I have a nasty feeling that it's not a joke...

Re:And what's the problem here?

[couchslug]

The warranty company would be smarter to jack up premiums and laugh when your car breaks down, since they'll still get paid and breakdowns reinforce the need for their product.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[SimonGhent]

There is no duty to warn the intruder or use less than lethal force

Bonkers.

Pretty much every British person is proud of their National Health Service and their unarmed police.

A significant amount of Americans foam at the mouth at the thought of not being able to take a gun into Starbucks or the thought of providing health care to someone unable to pay.

Bonkers.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[geminidomino]

Unless you are an idiot or a marksman
you should never shoot to wound.

Why would a marksman shoot to wound? He might have the ability, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[zippthorne]

Well, what's next? Health care is a product that may extend your span on the earth. Of course you want it, and you're probably willing to pay for it, too.

I can think of another product that's even more vital to extending your span on the earth than health care. And that is food. Without proper food care, you average life span would be measured in months not years.

Therefore, I propose that we nationalize food care (we've already started! Subsidies...) in the coming years and enslave the farmers in the same way that we're going to enslave the doctors. If we only nationalize food care, then our chocolate needs will be taken care of. Ever year the ration will be bigger than the last.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[zippthorne]

Why is this flamebait?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[roguetrick]

Catastrophic insurance is actually worse, because it discourages people from getting that checkup. In the end, it pays the insurance company more to make sure you get that oil change than it does to pay for the engine replacement if you DON'T get that oil change. Most models of public health focus on preemptive medicine, it just pays out better.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[theaveng]

You have all the rights you name, *until those rights damage another's rights*. For the example the right to sex. You can have sex with yourslef (your hand) all you want, but once you involve a partner you need her/his permission, otherwise you are violating their body rights/property.

That's the flaw with healthcare. It violates people's rights by stealing their money/property/labor and giving it to someone else.

And that's why I'm against it. I'm also against the idea of helping people who engage in self-destructive behaviors like overating, drinking, smoking. They created the health problem - it should be their responsibility to fix it, not me or my neighbors.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[hedwards]

The right solution to illegal immigrants using this is to deal with the problem of illegal immigrants. As in levy huge fines against people that knowingly hire them and fix immigration policy to make sure that jobs that are legitimately not being filled by US citizens are at least filled by green card holders. You're not going to get it 100% right, but having 11m or so of them mostly working in sweatshop like conditions is a disgrace.

I don't want a national ID card personally, but the reality is that we already have one, we've all got our social security cards, and as long as the new card is in a similar vein, there's probably not going to be a whole lot of fighting about it. A national drivers license and set of records for everything would be a much bigger fight, with good reason.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[ProfBooty]

While germany's external debt is ~2.5 less than the US, it is #3 in the world a worse per capita debt.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=100&v=94

The GP is correct that by and large as a percentage of GDP, most of the larger western european nations are in fact worse than the US, but no where near as bad as Japan (170% of GDP).

Italy 104%
Belgium 84.6%
Germany 64.9% of GDP
France 63.9%

US 60.8%

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pub_deb-economy-public-debt

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Raemond]

There's a difference between things and activities that we want and our rights.

I may want to get out of the cage, but it doesn't necessarily mean I have the right to (prison, after committing a crime, for example). I may want to bungee jump off the Eiffel Tower, but it doesn't mean I have a right to.

Just because something might make me happy doesn't necessarily mean I have a right to do it.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[LanMan04]

Block Mania! East-Meg 1!

Oh wait, what were we talking about?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[tthomas48]

I completely agree. And wouldn't it be better if the poor illegal immigrant were paying $1 per month so that they were at least subsidizing that penicillin? I really don't see the value of "illegal immigrants can't buy health plans and contribute to reducing health care costs".

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jecblackpepper]

Why the hell would anyone open a hospital and equip it with the latest equipment and best doctors, if he couldn't earn a profit from it?

Oh, I don't know, maybe the government could build and equip them as common infrastructure, like for example roads or fire stations or police stations. When a hospital is a private institution then they get built where they can make a profit rather than where they might be needed.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[English French Man]

I don't understand... Less gun control induces lower rates of crime, and the example you provide is Arizona, specifically Phoenix (IIRC it is in Arizona), which, should we believe you, has the second highest kidnapping rate... how is this a much lower rate of crime? have I missed something in your post?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jason Levine]

I wouldn't call a law that allows you to protect yourself from intruders "hideously broken." Here's a true story: A few years back, my wife and I woke up at 2am to our doorbell ringing. We figured it was acting up again. (It's a wireless doorbell and had malfunctioned from time to time.) I checked out our son's window (which faces the front step) and there was a guy in shorts and a hooded sweatshirt (hood over his head) standing on our front step. I told my wife and she dialed 911 as he wandered around the back of our house. Meanwhile, I looked for something to defend ourselves with.

Now, we don't have guns in our house and would never have one (personal preference), but I did find a hammer. Armed with the hammer, I was trying to figure out where the guy had gone to when he showed back up on our front step. He banged on our front door a few times and then spotted me peaking through the window blinds.

He walked over and began banging on the window - hard. So hard, I was afraid he'd break through the window. My wife scooped up our son and took him to our bedroom while I stayed behind (hammer at the ready). I told him to go away and that we'd called the police but he kept banging and demanding that we let him in NOW!

I found myself realizing that - should he break through the window and try to get in - I would do more damage hitting him with the claw end of the hammer than with the other end. Now, I'm not a violent person, but at that moment I felt that my wife and child we being threatened and I was willing to do anything - including taking this intruder's life - to protect them. (My safety didn't even enter into the equation.)

Eventually, he wandered off again and the police arrived. They caught him and it turned out he was a college kid who was drunk out of his mind and thought he was at a friend's house. (He sobered up real quick when cornered by 3 BIG police dogs.) We didn't press charges and the police escorted him to his friend's house.

Now, if he had actually broken through, would I have hit him? Definitely. I would have still felt that my family was being threatened and I feel that I would have been well within my rights to defend them. Without the right to self defense, what would my option be? Let the guy in my house so he could potentially hurt my family and stand by watching because I don't want him suing me for hurting him while he did that?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jason Levine]

Your understanding is correct. My identity was stolen and a credit card was issued in my name and that's the information the thieves had. They even got Mother's Maiden Name wrong, tried changing the address immediately, and asked for a cash advance before the card was activated and the credit card company (*cough*Capital One*cough*) didn't think anything was wrong. The only reason I wasn't harmed as much as I could have been was because the thieves slipped up. They paid for the card to be rush-delivered and *THEN* changed the address. So Capital One rushed the card out before they changed the address and it wound up in my mailbox. Otherwise, the thieves would have gotten it, would have charged up a storm on my credit and I wouldn't have known until the debt collectors came a-knockin'.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[rapierian]

I think the implications of a national ID entirely depend on implementation. National IDs could be very scary indeed if, for example, they directly tied things like your tax history to the card. On the other hand, there are ways to do national IDs that would be an absolute boon to businesses, privacy, security, and personal liberty. Some time ago I submitted a proposal to ANSI to develop an ID standard. If national IDs were implemented as a set of requirements to a standard, than private issuers (think Credit Card issuers, for example) could compete with each other developing as secure and convenient of cards as possible. Furthermore, you could require those companies to store all personal data, and require that merchants (or whoever else needs to access your data, such as hospitals accessing your medical records) not store the data, and be verified and audited for security before they access it. This would in fact give citizens control over their own personal data, and provide a known level of security around everything.

My proposal is here, in pdf form.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Pandrake]

I don't trust any statistics about guns and crime, or that I'd be able shoot first or know for certain the intruder I kill is a real threat to me or that he/she would be threatened by my having a gun in the first place. That's why I prefer to use a batleth in cases of confrontation.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[TimSSG]

Some Marksmen are idiots.
And, some in a FBI ran shoot-out may be ordered to wound.

Tim S.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Danga]

You don't understand because you either failed to read the article I linked to or you failed reading comprehension of the article. As I said in a previous post to another person like you, there is a MASSIVE turf war going on between Mexican drug cartels and the violence from it is spilling over into the US border states, especially Arizona. I also said places with low gun control USUALLY have lower rates of crime, not always, so once again you failed reading comprehension with my original post material. I did say that places in the US that have high gun control ALWAYS have higher rates of crime compared to before they had gun control, that is a fact. You people trying to be clever keep end up making yourself look very unclever...

Re:And what's the problem here?

[digitalFlack]

Well said. Now can you please explain this to those Supreme Court dudes that think "rights" were cast into stone in the 18th century. Cheers, Flack

Re:And what's the problem here?

[English French Man]

OK, thank you for your kind answer. My point is still valid though, you assert that crime rates are lower in low gun control states, and provide one example where it is higher. When trying to make points, try giving relevant examples, it prevents stupid men like me to be confused.

I would just like to point out that, where I live (France) we have drastic gun control (we, simple citizens, do not have the right to own a gun), and that we have much less criminal rates than you have in the USA. We have drug cartels too, and we have Italian and Russian Mafia at some places too, so I don't think it is completely related to drug cartels and other criminal organisations.

Please keep in mind in your answer that I am aware of my own stupidity, and don't remind me of it.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[daem0n1x]

If I find a person in my home without my permission (i.e. an intruder), I'm going to warn him to leave voluntarily. If he refuses then he will eat a bullet

This is simply right-wing bullshit. If you don't like immigrants don't hire them. But then, instead of an illegal Guatemalan nanny you'll have to hire a chubby, pink, blonde American for 5 times the salary plus Social Security, taxes, and shit. Good luck with that.

The anti-immigrant speech is the same everywhere. Hypocritical bullshit.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DavidShor]

At this point, you're just watering down the concept of rights until it's something meaningless and stupid. By your definition, you don't have the right to free speech either, just the right to defend yourself when the government comes to take you away.

.

That's all nice and consistent, but you're just playing with words. I believe that it should be an explicit aim of society to provide certain freedoms to all of it's members. I call these freedoms "rights".

I believe that these freedoms include the right to political speech without facing prosecution, the right to not live in fear of being attacked or killed, and yes, a right to a minimum standard of food, housing, and health care.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[NotYours]

How do you determine the intent of the person who has entered your home? You present a range of responses that are acceptable based on the intent of the criminal. If you assume they are only trying to steal and it turns out they have broken in to kill your family you have now placed yourself at a severe disadvantage in a confrontation. If you assume that they have come in to kill your family and they are only trying to steal you put them at the disadvantage. Given the two options I would rather a criminal in my home be at the disadvantage.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Shotgun]

Wrong. A significant amount of Americans foam at the mouth at the thought of a paternalistic government scheming to control more and more of our lives. It *IS* a slippery slope. Social Security and Medicare *ARE* socialism, and both programs *ARE* falling apart. The bill that just passed *WILL* force the disintegration of social programs to occur faster, and that disintegration *WILL* be used as an excuse to increase control more.

That is what we're foaming at the mouth about. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't care to be European. My feeling for European society can be summed up with the words "sniveling" and "weak". I've never been there. My views are derived from discussions that I've had with Europeans. You don't have to agree with me, but neither do I have to agree with you.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Shotgun]

Yes, illegal immigrants should all be rounded up and deported,

Wrong. The should be rounded up and enrolled in a government controlled work program to insure:

1) They get paid.
2) They have safe working conditions.
3) They pay the appropriate taxes.
4) They go home when the job is done.
5) They can receive counseling on proper immigration procedures.

The current situation is ridiculous. As a society, the US wants the immigrants, because they work cheap, but we don't want the immigrants, because they work cheap. I say, bring the whole thing out into the open and make a legal path available.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Shotgun]

The other place I disagree with is for the very poor- a doctors visit even at inflation adjusted prices of 30 years ago would be a significant cost to them and any just society would need to at least partially subsidize it.

If nearly every one of the "very poor" you speak of didn't have a cell phone, I might agree with you.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[DavidShor]

"here is no right to be protected by police and it's not their job to protect you. It's their job to enforce the law. So, come up with a better example."

Murder is against the law. If their job is to enforce the law, then yes, it is their job to protect me.

"There's only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that fails that simple test, the right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.""

Right, because philosophy and views on how to run a society have not advanced at all since 1789...

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Chris Burke]

Where did they get those? We're not really sure.

Yeah in the "well it's hypothetically possible they didn't come from the obvious place" sense of not sure. Hm, drug gangs near the U.S. border, that we know cross the border to sell their product, have U.S.-made weapons... HMMMMMMM...

It's Iran-Contra all over again as far as I'm concerned, only this time I'm hoping neither government is directly involved in authorizing it. :P

However, you can't blame one and then acquit another.

Thus the phrase "two-way street". :P

Also, I wonder if corrupt Mexican military officials have sold weapons on "the black market" or if they were stolen from the military. Wouldn't shock me.

Oh sure I wouldn't be shocked that there would be corruption. But I think you're really selling the military short at a time when the federal goverment finally got sick of the local governments' and police forces' lack of action and sent in the army to kick some Zeta teeth in. They're doing a bang-up job, even caught the asshole who attacked the U.S. embassy. And unlike the gang bangers and the police, the military doesn't shake down the locals for everything they can.

By the way, just checked and only special forces use AR-15 in the mexican military, so while again it's still plausible some are being sold on the black market, it's probably not the main source simply for numerical reasons.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Reziac]

And those Spanish and Portuguese were invited into Central and South America, right??

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Reziac]

I just had this vision of one of those awful "duty to retreat" states adding a requirement that you must ask the intruder for his RealID before asking him to leave your house.

Side thought: scanners at the doorway that alert the police if anyone without an approved microchip enters your house.

Ugh. There's no end to the invasive scenarios this coughs up. I prefer the shotgun in easy reach. At least it won't have to wait for the cops to arrive.

Further side thought: I wonder if anyone (outside of ghetto areas, where it does happen) has ever been forced to permanently move out of their house under a 'duty to retreat' law?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Firethorn]

I certainly wouldn't say so. Europeans were rather expansionist back in the day.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[g0bshiTe]

I'm sorry for your loss, and not trying to belittle her memory touching on your point, 4 years of chemo getting sick after treatment would suck at any age, I could imagine what it would be like at 80, or living a full life until 80, then just give me something if I'm in pain, it's quality of your life not longevity here people.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[RoFLKOPTr]

Why a nasty feeling? That's the way the world works. Get over it.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[AuMatar]

I think you need to study up on history. there was a giant push for an income tax in the progressive movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, especially by farmers. It was pushed by the Populist party and William Jennings Bryant among others. It was in fact very popular with most of the country at inception. And still is popular witht he realistic half of the country today- things have to be paid for, and income tax is the fairest way to do it. We desperately need to close aa lot of loopholes, but that's a different issue.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

I just had this vision of one of those awful "duty to retreat" states adding a requirement that you must ask the intruder for his RealID before asking him to leave your house.

Yep, it's good to live in a state with a Castle Doctrine law. Once you're inside your house, there is absolutely no duty to retreat, and it would be very hard for the county prosecutor to make any kind of case against you.

Side thought: scanners at the doorway that alert the police if anyone without an approved microchip enters your house.

Even that wouldn't help. Home invaders can do all kinds of things in the 5 minutes it takes cops to arrive, including abduct you.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

Therefore, I propose that we nationalize food care (we've already started! Subsidies...) in the coming years and enslave the farmers in the same way that we're going to enslave the doctors.

We already have this. It's called "food stamps". Every civilized country does something like this for their poorest members. Of course, in the USA, our system is very poorly run and regulated, and people with food stamps are driving around in cars with expensive "rimz", and buying cigarettes and booze with their cash. Why we do such a poor job of running our social services compared to more-civilized countries in the world, I don't know.

As for enslaving doctors, that was done long ago by the insurance companies. A lot of doctors have already left the profession because they couldn't afford to practice due to excessively high malpractice premiums (even if they never had any claims against them). OBGYNs have been particularly hard-hit in this regard. Obviously, insufficient government regulation isn't working.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

Catastrophic insurance is actually worse, because it discourages people from getting that checkup. In the end, it pays the insurance company more to make sure you get that oil change than it does to pay for the engine replacement if you DON'T get that oil change.

That's why I'm thinking some sort of hybrid model is a good idea, such as government-provided health care for the small stuff (checkups, etc.), and individually-paid catastrophic insurance for really big things like heart transplants for 85-year-olds and the like.

Most models of public health focus on preemptive medicine, it just pays out better.

Yes, but my understanding is that in more-civilized countries, their models of public health don't involve big insurance companies sitting in the middle, collecting a toll on every instance of health care service. In those countries, the government simply deals directly with the providers.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

Then you need to find another doctor. There's plenty of doctors who WILL give you a cheaper cash price. Find the doctors who don't work in big offices with 10 other doctors; the ones who work alone are better.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

I absolutely agree. Our legal system is broken if people are even allowed to file such lawsuits. Lawyers who take these cases should be disbarred. Unless the doctor obviously did something negligent causing the birth defect (such as somehow depriving the infant of oxygen for a while), there's almost no way a delivery doctor can be at fault for birth defects. That's the mother's fault for not taking care of herself, or just being biologically defective in general.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

It's almost impossible to own a gun in New Jersey, so their Castle law isn't worth much. Same goes for Illinois, especially within Chicago.

So which are the states where you're not allowed to defend yourself in your own home anyway? WI? RI? MA? CT? NY? NM?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Gearoid_Murphy]

wow, buddy, you just made a ton of sense with that comment. If it was possible to rate the comment, "god-like in its apprehension of the problem", that's what you'd be getting.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

No, you can't. Federal law prohibits smoking weed, despite whatever your state laws might say. If you don't like that, then I suggest petitioning your state legislators to secede, since the Federal government isn't going to change marijuana laws any time soon, and Obama's BATFE is happy to bust medical marijuana dispensaries.

It's kinda funny, in a tragic way: you liberal pot-smokers probably thought things were going to change when you elected Obama. Who are you going to elect now? You can't elect Republicans, because they obviously don't agree with you on anything, and Obama and the Democraps are obviously in the pocket of the insurance and pharma companies, and aren't interested in legalization.

(For the record, I'm a libertarian: I believe in both gun ownership and legalization of drugs. If you want my advice, everyone should vote OUT ALL incumbents, except Ron Paul, who interestingly is pro-legalization.)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

Don't be an idiot. Stupid people are already reproducing in droves, far more than smart people. Cancer treatment won't make a difference, and many cancers are actually caused by viruses.

The answer is genetic engineering and nanotech: we're already very close to having drugs which target tumors directly, and soon cancer will be a thing of the past. But the problem of overpopulation of stupid people won't be fixed by that; stupidity is mostly caused by upbringing and culture, not genetics. The only way to fix that is to have the government raise all the children, a la "Brave New World", which obviously doesn't sound like a very good solution.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

This is an unworkable idea. You don't go to "your doctor" when you need a heart transplant, you go to a specialist. Your general practitioner does not have an interest in you getting sick; it's not like he gets a kickback from the surgeon.

This is a little different from the car analogy, where for the most part your regular mechanic does ALL work on your car, and does have an interest in making you come back by using sabotage.

Better approach: Pay your health care providers a flat annual fee for comprehensive wellness care.

Which provider? How does the heart surgeon get paid this way? I don't currently pay heart surgeons anything, because I've never needed heart surgery, so why would I want to change to a system where I have to pay a heart surgeon a flat fee for something I don't need?

You seem to be missing the fact that health care providers are all separate entities, not some giant mass or company. When you go to the hospital, you get two or three separate bills, because the doctors who treat you there are separate from the hospital itself.

Or maybe you're talking about dealing with the insurance companies this way. That's basically what we already do: we pay a flat fee to the insurance company for our all care for the year, and (minus copays) they pay for everything. It's not working very well, and costs are skyrocketing, which is why everyone is screaming for reform.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Reziac]

Montana's new castle law is even better -- you don't need to be in your house. If someone comes up to you on the street and threatens you, it's THEIR job to back down, not yours. If they threaten you and you shoot them in self-defense, the premise is that you were innocent.

That was kinda my point about the doorway chips -- that it would sound good to the fearful, but in fact wouldn't accomplish a damn thing (other than maybe letting the cops keep an eye on when you come and go from your own house).

Re:And what's the problem here?

[rubycodez]

police are a local function, my local taxes which are another matter entirely.

even though nowadays we have all manner of national-level police and that is wrong.

  If you read federalist papers you'll find our founding fathers even considered a huge standing army in time of peace to be evil (and guess what we find today....) If we only protected our shores instead of projecting power all over the globe to intimidate, profiteer, genocide we'd be in much better shape.

The federal government is STRICTLY to be limited to enumerated duties in the constitution, all other power reserved to the states or to the People.

And by the way, I don't consider the police the first defense against home invader who wishes to rape or kill or kidnap. Police are reactive, the armed citizen is the constitutionally approved first line of defense.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[rubycodez]

the police usually come in after a murder and do paperwork and investigation, they most of the time cannot and do not protect from attempted murder-in-progress or rape-in-progress or kidnapping-in-progress. Only a fool, later to be labelled "victim", relies on police as primary self-protection or family protection against those threats. The primary responsibility for protection is therefore at the individual, family and neighbor level. Therefore the individual is obligated to provide the first line of protection for himself and for his family, the government is second or third tier.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[srvivn21]

Having application-specific IDs makes the system more secure because (a) a lot less people are going to be trying to forge each one - think 50 different driver's licenses versus one, that's 50 times the expertise required from the same number of forgers.

Using state specific driver's licenses as your example here is a bad choice. Considering a DL issued in one state is valid in all, it's a case of "the chain is only as strong as the weakest link". Further, it requires those verifying the validity of IDs to be familiar with the security features of 50 different versions, which lowers the efficacy.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That problem is mostly due to the centralized identity aspect of driver's license cards - if they were only used to verify the license to drive rather than as an identity proxy for a billion other uses then both of those weaknesses would be moot because the drivers license databases would back the information on the card - you wouldn't even need much in the way of security features, just the image of the person's face on the card and in the database to authenticate that the person holding the card is the person licensed.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Some Bitch]

Wrong. A significant amount of Americans foam at the mouth at the thought of a paternalistic government scheming to control more and more of our lives. It *IS* a slippery slope. Social Security and Medicare *ARE* socialism, and both programs *ARE* falling apart.

It's not our fault you're shit at governing yourselves.

That is what we're foaming at the mouth about. You'll have to excuse me, but I don't care to be European. My feeling for European society can be summed up with the words "sniveling" and "weak". I've never been there. My views are derived from discussions that I've had with Europeans. You don't have to agree with me, but neither do I have to agree with you.

I, on the other hand, have first hand experience of the USA so have a rather better basis for my views. Most of you are decent folks individually, it's just collectively that you have your heads shoved up your arses. We did it earlier than you, we did it bigger than you, and we did it better than you, then we got over it and realised that civilised countries care for their poor.

Hell, fuck the poor for a minute, civilised countries care for their veterans! Nothing about the USA annoys me more than the way you treat your veterans, pansy ass motherfuckers thinking your hard because you own a gun? Grow a set and start thinking about the people who REALLY fought for your country.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Danga]

I apologize for the harsh answer, my original post was a bit confusing as you explained. The first part of my post was talking about castle doctrine and why I like it and don't want the yahoo I was responding to moving to Arizona and donating to politicians who would try and increase gun control. I ended the first paragraph with a sentence backing up why I hold the position I do.

My second paragraph just went into more details as to why I like having access to firearms due to the dangers where I live, I have seen video on the news caught on security cameras of home invasions where multiple mexican's are storming a house with AR-15's, I wouldn't want to be stuck with calling the police as my only option in that situation, I would want a firearm in hand. I did not intend to try and prove the crime rate is lower in AZ due to having less gun restrictions but if we enacted restrictions similar to Chicago (or IL in general, you are required to have a firearm owner ID card to buy 22 bullets and other BS in that corrupt state) or Washington DC I wouldn't be suprised to see crime increase even more.

I don't know why your criminal rates are lower in France, but I highly doubt they are lower due to stricter gun control. Of course gun crimes may be lower due to stricter gun control but I would definitely love to see some proof that stricter gun control has lowered all crime across the board. I am basing that stance on the stats I have seen in the US for locations that have increased gun control, the crime rate seems to always go up, I have even seen this be the case with locations outside the US. Also, to me it just makes sense that if a criminal knows the person he wants to commit a crime against has the chance of being armed with a firearm they would less likely choose to commit the crime compared to if they know nearly 100% that the person does not have a firearm, just the chance of having a firearm would be a deterant to me personally. Whatever floats your boat though, I like my gun rights and you seem to like your gun restrictions, to each their own.

One more thing and that is I think a large part of the crime in AZ is due to illegal immigrants, it is a fact drug cartels recruit them for crimes such as the kidnappings and human/drug smuggling and suprisingly after the US started enforcing some stricter illegal immigrant rules and also jobs were less available the illegal immigrant populations fell by nearly a third in Arizona and crime rates fell drastically AND quickly too. In fact, in the first few months after the illegal immigrant populations fell crime was down 25% in Phoenix and 19% in Mesa which I found very interesting and also why I am for more policies to lower the illegal immigrant population. I have no problem with immigrants, in fact I welcome anyone to the USA who wants to come here peacefully, just do it legally of course. Here is a link to an article in the Phoenix Business Journal talking about the crime decreases:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/07/27/daily89.html

Re:And what's the problem here?

[TClevenger]

You think one of those overpriced ripoff "extended warranty" plans costs less than paying for repairs as they become necessary?

If replacing a starter cost $6,000 and an engine overhaul cost $3,000,000, then yes. A 45-minute gallbladder removal and 4 days of semi-private hospital room cost $21,000. That's the insurance-negotiated discount price. Quadruple bypass and five days cost around $56,000--again, the insurance-negotiated price. Without insurance, that same heart surgery runs around $169,000.

The difference is that the auto mechanic has the option to not touch your car until you pay up front. Hospitals don't have that option, so if you don't have insurance, they get to eat that $56,000 (or, in more realistic terms, pass that cost onto the rest of us.)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[shiftless]

With a proper government, people are a net resource - the more people we've got here, the bigger the economy and the greater the ability to overcome obstacles.

At this point somebody usually trots out an argument about "limited resources" - like not enough water, or land, or food, or some other bullshit that's patently not true. While some of those resources are limited in some areas, that's hardly the case across the country. And the great thing about having more people around is that you've got more people to restructure those resources so that they are available where they need to be.

Spoken like a typical ignorant fuck who hasn't been to Marshall County, Alabama, specifically the town of Kilpatrick. It used to be a beautiful little country town with green grassy fields, but now every square inch of it is covered in nasty old 1950s-1970s era single wide trailers thanks to all the illegal Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants moving in en masse and trashing the place out. They've also brought a lot of problems in with them; said county is also the #1 meth producing county in the nation. It won't be long before the first gangs start up and violence becomes a problem.

Maybe that's the kind of America you want for yourself, but we whose fathers have been living here for generations and who have built something worth having pride in don't want a third world culture moving in all at once, and destroying everything we've built or dragging it down to their low standards. I'm all about people immigrating here and merging gracefully into our culture, just not the entire damn nation coming at once like seems to be happening now.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[English French Man]

Sorry, my answer was harsh too, I apologise. Thank you for answering me nonetheless.

Personally, I think gun control is relatively irrelevant with regard to crime rates. Of course being able to defend oneself against an attack is something that firearms allow, I can't disagree with that. On the other hand, an attacker or an invader is less likely to carry a gun in France, just because it is not really possible to buy one legally (there are exceptions of course, soldiers, policemen and security agencies can have a firearm owner ID, as well as huntsmen).

And lets face it, if I don't own a gun, my 7 years old son can't find it and shoot himself with it by accident; now I don't think this is remotely frequent in countries that allow free gun ownership, but this would still irrationally frighten me.

And last, what would I do if multiple Mexicans with AR-15's stormed my home? Opening fire does not seem very safe here. I think my preservation instinct would rapidly overcome me and make me flee or surrender (after all, I am French). So OK, they would rob me or kidnap my child, but I would be alive, trying to do something about it.

I understand quite well that our countries have very different threats to face, and that the response to those threats are obviously not the same, but I still wonder what stricter gun control would do to the US.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[plague911]

sure they could. but most wont. like i said just because your neighbor could put out the fire dose not mean they will and and thus were back to square one. pay for it now or pay for it latter.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[jwhitener]

It is actually larger difference than even your example gives. Estimates I've heard are in the 10% to 13% range. That is, your health insurance cost is 10-13% higher directly because of emergency room costs caring for illegal or otherwise not insured patients.

Temporary worker visa's (generates tax dollars) + temporary worker health care coverage (cheapest way to provide care rather than ER) is the most economical solution.

We need to start making policy based on the real world, not some fabricated ideologically based fantasy land.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Grishnakh]

Score: -1 Pedantic

Re:And what's the problem here?

[dlanod]

In Australia we have providers of "roadside assistance", which for an annual fee you can ring to come and either fix or organize towing of your car if it breaks down, gets a flat battery, or even lock your keys in the car. It's a pretty common service that almost everyone has because of the long distances and low amounts of traffic on some of our roads, for example.

Fitting in with your analogy, I have a friend who recently got threatened with a refusal to renew his roadside assistance for the coming year unless he got his car serviced because he'd had four call outs in a year so it definitely makes sense for that scenario to be the case both automatively and in healthcare.

On the friend, all four call outs were for locking his keys in his car so the company providing the roadside assistance withdrew the ultimatum in the end since it didn't make sense... :)

Re:And what's the problem here?

[b4dc0d3r]

The whole reason you file a claim is because you want them to pay, and they negotiated a lower price. It's no different from joining a members-only warehouse like Sam's Club. Set prices for most goods and large discounts on some special deal items.

It's backwards from what you say. Doctors have high list prices because insurance companies have a set price that doctors must accept by signing on to the insurance company. In order to get paid by us (since you will get pennies on the dollar from the number of people who pay your bill in full after bankruptcy or collections takes their cut), you agree to those prices. How do the prices get set? By looking at prices in an area and deciding what's reasonable. $120 for lab work including blood draw becomes $6.83, paid in full and guaranteed without having to bill the customer. If you don't have an HRA set up then the insurance company usually pays part of the cost, guaranteeing you'll see money faster than getting it out of the average patient.

If you'd prefer to think of doctors as non-colluding, they make up what the insurance company refuses to pay by having the uninsured pay more. If you like colluding doctors, they intentionally set high prices hoping to bring up the average cost of a procedure, and thus their share. The latter is what was explained to me by a member of a medical practice, but anyone can choose to disbelieve.

Basically, the insurance company will pay the gap between the $20 copay and their agreed-on fee, which might be $60, with your premiums. Once they spend what you paid, they use other peoples' premiums. Once they run out of money they increase premiums.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Eil]

I just don't see what's wrong with not wanting health insurance. I'm healthy, I take care of myself, and I live an extremely low-risk lifestyle. I get sick maybe once every few years. I've never broken a bone, ever. I have health insurance through my job, but I feel that I should have the option of saying, "no, I'll take the risk of having a huge hospital bill on the extremely rare chance that I contract a sudden illness or break something." It's not a free country when you're legally forced to purchase and own something you don't need.

Universal health care will be a boon to many who are less fortunate than me in terms of their genetic and situational (i.e. hit by a bus) health. But a great many more will see this as an opportunity to be even less responsible with their health than they already are.

I'm not saying there's not a lot of good in the bill. But I am saying there is a lot of bad. Chief among them the fact that the health insurance industry just the whole country's money handed to them for comparatively minor concessions. As I said in my post, I would have ultimately been fine with it if I knew my new healthcare "tax" was going towards subsidizing a low-income insurance plan run by a government agency or non-profit. Instead, a non-trivial cut is going straight into the pockets of insurance executives.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[b4dc0d3r]

Because your information about cancer and insurance sounds 30 years out of date, possible responses include:

-If you get cancer you're fucked no matter what.
-If you get cancer you'll just extend you painful life trying to fight the symptoms.
-It doesn't matter cos cancer is nearly cured.

If right to life meant right to artificial extension of life, free doctor care would have been set up by the founding fathers. I'm not saying whether it's valid, since I elected my representatives to decide those things for me, but you're arguing that their words applied to doctoring and there's little evidence of that. Right to life certainly covers not being shot, or not being poisoned by wastewater, or lead in childrens' toys, or things like asbestos.

Being poor doesn't mean you die decades earlier, unless you're talking about a small percentage of cancers and a small percentage of the population which will gain benefit from expensive medicines and treatments. Some of the treatments are worse than just taking large amounts of over-the-counter pain relievers and waiting it out. In the most expensive (common) treatments, prognosis is usually measured in months, so left untreated you're not close to a single decade, let alone multiple.

So in short, you have a marginal point, but specious support at best.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Lol, I maybe an ignorant fuck, but at least I'm literate enough to read what I respond to instead of going off with a rant that was already addressed in the post I'm flaming.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[lkeagle]

This being MY country and MY birthright, fuck them.

Ahem... Our country...

Re:And what's the problem here?

[lkeagle]

Oops, that was supposed to be a response to the GP. Anyone who thinks that this country is theirs and theirs alone is delusional. Same goes with political parties that believe that they represent all of America with their political beliefs.

I think if you're one of 300 million Americans, it's only 1/300,000,000 YOUR country.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[dwiget001]

No, the passing of the health care monstrosity (TM) does not give anyone a "right" to health care. Such a right never existed before, doesn't now, and unless embodied in the U.S. Constitution as an amendment, it will never exist as a "right".

Now, to the matter at hand, a "National ID card", it is just another of the things that the U.S. government clearly has no mandate for in the U.S. Constitution. It is, was and always will be a state's rights issue.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Reikachu]

More importantly, why should I care if a fraction of human beings who receive life-critical health care are designated "illegal" by some entity? Because my money's involved? Oh nooooooooo.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Specter]

Actually, that's not true: robbers also benefit from having an effective police force. They benefit because it actually acts as insurance against excessive costs to themselves should their robbery schemes go bad. With an effective and well regulated police force a robbery that's foiled or ultimately handled by the police serves to cap the maximum penalty for failure (jail) which they can also mitigate against with good legal representation. So, a good police force can make robbery less risky at the upper end of consequences.

Without a police force vigilantism becomes the rule and there's no upper limit to the penalty for failing in a robbery attempt. Death, dismemberment, retribution against close family or friends, etc are are potential risks.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[dloose]

I get modded as a troll, but sir-shoots-a-lot is "Insightful"... For shame, /.. For shame.

Re:And what's the problem here?

[shiftless]

I would only call that "addressed" if I were a fucking idiot. Since my IQ is above 90, I can see several flaws in your theory. What are you going to do, build a bunch of cities out in the middle of nowhere, and all of a sudden everybody is going to move there of their own accord, and presto chango, all our problems with illegal immigrants will be magically solved? You're saying the reason these Mexicans come to Marshall County in the first place is because there isn't room in the midwest? I mean did you even think through any of this at all before you posted?

Re:And what's the problem here?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I would only call that "addressed" if I were a fucking idiot. Since my IQ is above 90,

Just barely it seems.

I mean did you even think through any of this at all before you posted?

You just posited that I would consider building cities in the middle of nowhere when no one is actually there and you are asking me if I thought before I posted?

Even with an IQ of only 90 you can't possibly think that ANY city was ever built like that. Enjoy playing with your strawmen.

This ought to be good

[Skyshadow]

The awesome part about this is that it ought to cause the Tea Party types to blow a gasket. On one hand, you have the federal government making ID's that will make it tougher for undocumented aliens to get work, so finally all of those high-flight jobs mowing lawns and manning the grill at fast food restaurants will be safe for Real Americans(tm). On the other hand, you have the federal government making ID's that will allow them to do... Well, whatever wacky-ass conspiricy stuff the federal government supposedly does with ID's -- I'll have to wait for Glenn Beck to tell me exactly why it'll be such a problem, but I'm sure it will be. In reality, however, the big losers in any sort of forgery-proof national ID situation are going to tomorrow's 19 year-olds who won't be able to get into the bar with their "Hawaii driver's license" anymore. So really, this program only hurts the children.

Re:This ought to be good

[Skyshadow]

Oh, and the other loser? The formatting on my posts.

Eh, whitespace is overrated anyhow.

Re:This ought to be good

[LostCluster]

Yeah... hopefully Glenn Beck will get caught in an infinite loop of hating government and love of homeland security which will cause him to crash and need a reboot.

Re:This ought to be good

[bugs2squash]

perhaps he could call in on Apple while he's there

Re:This ought to be good

[Monkeedude1212]

Well, whatever wacky-ass conspiricy stuff the federal government supposedly does with ID's -- I'll have to wait for Glenn Beck to tell me exactly why it'll be such a problem, but I'm sure it will be.

Oh it's a problem alright. Lets look at one scenario: I want to become a world class Ninja Assassin. However, the trick to this is of course not having an Identity. I don't want myself to be identifyable. My Identity is MY OWN. Not yours, and not the governments either. So if I'm at home, making some home made French Fries by slicing potatoes with katanas, all it takes is one pedophile who thinks I'm an under-aged teen to peer in through the window and see my precious face, before running off and telling someone that he saw me. Now - in an ideal scenario, no one knows who I am, and thus, makes the entire situation Moot. But under this new "National ID Card" Idea, every police officer in the city will know who I am and will set up cameras outside my nice urban rent-controlled 1 bedroom appartment, hoping to catch me in the act of Nun-chucking some serious face. This will not suffice.

And remember, this is just if I wanted to become a Ninja Assassin. What if I wanted to become a Master Ninja Veterinarian? I won't be able to hide my identity then either!

Trust me, nothing is more dangerous to the preservation of our society than government issued ID's.

Re:This ought to be good

[isotope23]

Yeah, everything is all good.

Until they can REVOKE your right to work because of your political beliefs or associations...

Party on!

Re:This ought to be good

[couchslug]

"the big losers in any sort of forgery-proof national ID situation are going to tomorrow's 19 year-olds who won't be able to get into the bar with their "Hawaii driver's license" anymore. So really, this program only hurts the children."

They didn't care enough to vote, so they lost the right to drink booze. :)

Re:This ought to be good

[glennbeck911]

Oh? Do you really need me to tell you?

Ok.

Let's get to the good old friend - the black board. What's on the black board you ask?

1. Hitler
2. Stalin
3. Mao
4. Barack Hussein Obama
5. National ID.
6. Communist
7. Fascist
8. Killing Gramma
9. Baby Killing Atheist Communist Fascist agenda.

Arrow 1->5, 2->5, 3->5 and now 4->5, 4+5+6+7+8+9>2+6+3+5>1+7+5

Case closed.

Re:This ought to be good

[ogdenk]

You can get a standard ID at any DMV and register to vote. In fact, you don't even need a DMV ID to register to vote but a voter registration card is accepted as one form of proof of residence in many states.

What I'm saying is the state's already have ID's. The states are sovereign entities and have it covered. The Federal Govt was just supposed to provide some oversight to make sure states don't stamp on people's rights, provide a military and regulate interstate commerce.

Or did you go to public school? If so I could see why a state-run (but heavily federally subsidized) institution would want you to believe that the Feds are supreme beings. In fact their power was intentionally limited heavily in the early days for a F**KING REASON. Unfortunately they didn't quite realize that secret societies/political parties with massive wealth would always end up picking the candidates and not "the people" and the roaches came crawling in and infested every level of government down to your local post office. Welcome to USA, Inc.

I'm not for a pure democracy but I am for a lean mean efficient constitutional republic where squander and waste of tax dollars by or under the direction of elected officials is punishable in criminal court along with severe criminal penalties for attempting to sidestep the spirit of the constitution and step on the rights of citizens (or any man for that matter).

In this country it's not supposed to be "ruler" and "subject". We are supposed to direct, own and control THEM. The politicians are supposed to be puppets of the people, not sitting on the board of some megacorp and rubber stamping anything they want while trying to castrate the American people at the same time so they can't do anything about it.

I don't know about you all but I'm pretty fed up and starting to hit my wits end with this crap.

Re:This ought to be good

[wiredlogic]

Why the reboot?

Re:This ought to be good

[TheoCryst]

Remind me not to reboot him after he crashes.

Re:This ought to be good

[Fjandr]

That's the root of the problem with the concept. If you have to be licensed in order to work legally, working is not a right. The ramifications of it being possible to revoke the ability to provide for your life through your own labor are staggering, and I truly feel sorry for anyone who is unable to think of even one or two of those ramifications.

If passed, this will be the final nail in the coffin of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Re:This ought to be good

[lgw]

I wish more people understood even the basic idea of states' rights, but this fundamental principle of "the Unites States" sounds like some libertarian kook idea to so many.

Dammit, let Califoria do stuff that Texans find crazy, with the highest taxes rates in the country and still spending themselves into bankruptcy. Let Texas do stuff that Californians find crazy, with it's deregulated power grid and laws against buying beer on Sunday mornings. And let people move freely to the states that seem best to them. It's an awesome system, and one we seem to have abandoned in favor of strong central authority.

Re:This ought to be good

[lgw]

I keep failing to understand this argument, in all sincerity. How does "needing an ID card issued by the federal government in order to work" instead of "needing an ID card issued by the state government, plus a number issued by the federal government in order to work" give "them" a new ability to revoke your right to work? Also, who are "they"?

Re:This ought to be good

[Fjandr]

Actually you don't have to give a number issued by the Federal government. Employers just have to make a reasonable effort to attain it, and file an affidavit to that effect if they are unable to. That's the legal requirement anyway. As for the practical effect, yes, you have to supply it in order to be employed by most people. Most employers are unwilling to risk the wrath of the IRS for doing something that is almost unheard of but completely legal.

There's still at least a token effort to actually keep the law within the authority granted to the Federal government. This would completely end even a pretense of compliance with the 9th and 10th amendments, since the Federal government has no granted authority to regulate intrastate employment in any manner.

Re:This ought to be good

[lgw]

Where (seriously, where?) does this concept come from that a national ID creates a new "licensing" requirement to work that didn't previously exist. People keep nattering on about this as if it was an article of faith, and it makes no sense at all to me. In order to work, you need to prove your identity well enough to make the IRS happy. This in an unavoidable consquence of an income tax - not that I'm happy about any of that, but it's nothing new.

I think it's none of the government's business in the first place where I work or how much I earn, and we ought to ban the income tax in favor of a VAT, or some other tax not based on personally identifiable information. Also, I want a Ferrari. I'm unlikely to have either wish fulfilled, but that has jack-all to do with a national ID card.

Re:This ought to be good

[bledri]

Why the reboot?

To install Linux.

Re:This ought to be good

[Fjandr]

First sentence, fifth paragraph of the story. They want it required for employment.

I understand most people don't actually believe me when told that an SSN is not mandatory for legal employment, and if I still really cared I'd dig up the section of the IRC that is the controlling statute.

I'm not sure it can be explained more simply. Working is still conceptually a right. If tied to an official card that is revocable (they're talking about tying it to a national driver's license), it is no longer conceptually a right.

Yes, much of this deals with theoretical concepts (the definition of rights). You may not agree with the original concept of rights vs powers vs privileges, but if you understand the first two paragraphs of this post then we're on the same page whether you agree with my definition of what constitutes a right or not. If you believe I'm misinformed or lying about being able to work legally without an SSN, then this exchange is irrelevant. Either way, that is the honest answer to your question, so take it as you will.

Re:This ought to be good

[lgw]

Wait, so instead of needing two documents issued by two governments to work (TID/SSN + ID), I'll need one document issued by one government to work? Where is the increase in government power? Having a specific card be revokable if cloned is different from having your right to get a card be revokable, no? Why would the government ever want to revoke your ability to pay taxes in the first place? It already has plenty of ways to punish people it doesn't like, it's not like it's looking for a new one.

Re:This ought to be good

[Fjandr]

If you have to fill out an application for something, and pay an arbitrary fee, it is no longer a right.

My point was about legal theory. I am sorry that you don't actually see the point I'm trying to make, but I'm not sure how to break it down any further. You are focused on how it will simplify your life, and I can understand that. I could answer your questions again, but we'd be again discussing theory, based on potential and past events. That rarely ever goes well because people have a habit of derailing with quibbles over semantics that have nothing to do with the actual point, so I'm not going to take that path.

I will make one last comment regarding your final statement though. Governments are always looking for new ways to punish people. That's why they tack on new laws that provide additional punishment for things that are already crimes, in order to boost the number of charges. It's why tax stamps and registration are required to sell marijuana, or why it is now possible to be sentenced to prison for the ancillary crime of structuring, even when the structuring is not used to facilitate the hiding of a criminal act like money laundering.

Unfortunately, the problem is so bad now that the disconnect in understanding of legal theory is unlikely to ever get better (at least until the next cycle of major societal change). It can take months or years of research to sift through the webs of any given section of US law in order to get a fairly complete picture of interrelation and context, and that's when one is actually interested in the subject. Of course then there's the problem of keeping up. Creation of job security at its best.

Re:This ought to be good

[lgw]

If you have to fill out an application for something, and pay an arbitrary fee, it is no longer a right.

My point was about legal theory. I am sorry that you don't actually see the point I'm trying to make, but I'm not sure how to break it down any further

For the third time I say: you already have to do this. Current I9 requirements are from a selection of documents, but I don't think there's any combination that doesn't involve filling out an application for something and paying an arbitrary fee. Driver's license, non-drivers state ID, passport, birth certificate, whatever, you're sending a form and a fee to some government agency somewhere to get some form of ID before you can work.

In theory I find this quite annoying (in practice it's irrelevent - all of my recent employers do background checks, a much higher bar), but a centrally issued ID doesn't change anything. That fight has already been lost. Wake up Fjandr, it's later than you think.

Re:This ought to be good

[Fjandr]

You asked for a serious answer, and I gave you one. That it is something that does not exist in common practice is irrelevant to the point. Take that as you will, as in retrospect this exchange ceased being of any value a couple posts ago.

As I've said before, I'm perfectly aware of current common practice. As a result, stressing that I should wake up is more than a bit arrogant. But you probably knew that when you wrote it.

this is an opportunity

[bugs2squash]

To replace the fucked up SSN system with something that really works. Now if only they can get it right this time and make this a secure, government only thing.

Re:this is an opportunity

[LostCluster]

As much as us Americans hate being reduced to a number... something's got to be the primary key in the database records government and business keep about us.

Re:this is an opportunity

[DMUTPeregrine]

Yes, but the primary key shouldn't also be the secret key.

Re:this is an opportunity

[LostCluster]

Yes, but the primary key shouldn't also be the secret key.

Now there's an idea that's viable... require a securely-stored PIN to unlock the card in order to prove you are you, just like debit cards. Wouldn't help with a family member taking your card, but would help if a stranger tried it.

Re:this is an opportunity

[FooAtWFU]

Maybe if they do better than chip-and-PIN, which is fundamentally broken.

Re:this is an opportunity

[daem0n1x]

Wow, great idea! You should patent that!

Too bad a few European countries already have that for years...

Lol.

[Colin Smith]

You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?

Yes.

 

Re:Lol.

[ArcherB]

You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?

Yes.

Then YOU should provide healthcare for illegal immigrants. That's the beauty of a free country. YOU can provide healthcare for illegals if you want to and I can NOT provide healthcare to illegals if I DON'T want to.

Oh, wait. You were talking about taking MY money to pay for healthcare for illegals, weren't you?

So, let me make sure I understand this:
Forcing me and everyone else to purchase something does not limit my freedom.
Fining me for not purchasing something does not limit my freedom
Taking my property and using to purchase goods as services for others does not limit my freedom.

Making me carry a card and suddenly I no long have the ability to speak freely, practice my religion, own a firearm, peaceably assemble or any of the other nine Bill of Rights that the Constitution gives me (The 10th Amendment has been gone for quite some time).

Re:Lol.

[kimvette]

Then YOU should provide healthcare for illegal immigrants.

The correct term for such invaders is illegal aliens. Please stop referring to them as illegal immigrants, as immigrants enter the country legally. Illegal aliens do not.

Re:Lol.

[Timex]

That's the beauty of a free country.

When the government forces you to do it, there's no "free".

In a "free country", the people still have the choice to do it or not.

In a free country, the people can tell their government "NO!", and the government will listen.

The US Government became a tyranny when the reigning political party ran roughshod over the American people to get as much of their agenda through as they could before the next election.

Re:Lol.

[Mr. Underbridge]

You use the card if you want to identify yourself to apply for a job or to show up at a hospital and ask for medical services as an American. Just like you have to show an ID when you get on an airplane or cross into any country in the world. Just like you have to "carry a card" when you drive a car

And just like drivers' licenses and Social Security cards are used for myriad purposes for which they were not intended, so will any sort of national ID card. It is the camel's nose under the proverbial tent.

The fight against national ID cards is to make it at least harder to track people nationally. At least now, with ID cards balkanized by state, it's difficult to connect everything up. That inefficiency in practice provides some measure of anonymity. I would like to keep it that way.

Re:Lol.

[geminidomino]

It is the camel's nose under the proverbial tent.

Actually, given your examples (drivers' licenses and SS cards), I think it's safe to say the tent has been torn down and dangling from the camel's neck for at least five decades.

Re:Lol.

[quickgold192]

Legal immigrants enter the country legally. Illegal immigrants do not.
Legal aliens (vacationers) enter the country legally. Illegal aliens do not.

Re:Lol.

[Wandering Idiot]

The US Government became a tyranny [merriam-webster.com] when the reigning political party ran roughshod over the American people to get as much of their agenda through as they could before the next election.

No, passing their agenda is exactly what elected officials in a representative democracy are supposed to do. If you want to bring up polls about the health care bill a) They're technically irrelevant - we have a representative democracy, not direct, and b) A significant percentage of those polled didn't like the bill because it didn't go far enough to change health insurance.

If you actually believe what you wrote and aren't just trolling, you're a deluded idiot.

Re:Lol.

[Timex]

we have a representative democracy, not direct

No. We have a republic, not a democracy.

A significant percentage of those polled didn't like the bill because it didn't go far enough to change health insurance.

Not the people I've spoken to... Most of the people I know don't like the bill because it supports abortion, restricts care for children with "pre-existing conditions", and a laundry list of issues that do not help children with special needs.

On top of all this, Congress has no business mandating health care. That's a task for the individual states.

Re:Lol.

[Wandering Idiot]

we have a representative democracy, not direct

No. We have a republic, not a democracy.

We do have a representative democracy. It's also a constitutional republic, but I used the term specifically to highlight the difference between our system of government and a direct democracy, in which the public directly votes on all issues, rather than our elected representatives. If you want the country to be run entirely by public referenda, you're free to advocate for a direct democracy, but it isn't what we have currently. Personally, I think our voting systems would have to be made a good deal more convenient and efficient before even considering it, and even then there are problems with the idea (see: California).

A significant percentage of those polled didn't like the bill because it didn't go far enough to change health insurance.

Not the people I've spoken to... Most of the people I know don't like the bill because it supports abortion, restricts care for children with "pre-existing conditions", and a laundry list of issues that do not help children with special needs.

What's that? *Gasp, shock* The people you know and talk to tend to agree with you? Why, that's... utterly irrelevant. I don't give a shit about your anecdotal evidence. There are over 300 million people in this country, and I doubt your self-selected group of friends and acquaintances is a good representative sample, or large enough to be statistically meaningful.

The most recent polls are somewhat evenly split as to whether the majority of the public supports or dislikes the health care bill (there may have been differences in how the questions were asked), but my point is it doesn't really matter, policy changes are up to the elected officials until the next round of elections, and by then most people will probably be aware that the Communist Death PanelsOMG!!1!! doom-and-gloom was nonsense.

Also, two of the objections you named seem to be about the bill not being inclusive enough, which I thought was the opposite of your issue with it. (I would say the abortion one was refuted by the President's executive order reaffirming the ban on Federal funds going to them, but I suppose you could argue he'll just reverse it later)

On top of all this, Congress has no business mandating health care. That's a task for the individual states.

That's your opinion. The Supreme Court and something like a century of legislative precedent would likely disagree with you.

This argument isn't entirely unreasonable; I don't particularly like the broad interpretation of things like the commerce clause in lieu of passing specific Constitutional amendments to specify powers either, but that's how our government has functioned for a long time now, with some instances going back to the early post-founding days. The lawsuits by the state attorney generals are a publicity stunt- they aren't expecting them to actually hold up in court.

Re:Lol.

[Timex]

If you want the country to be run entirely by public referenda, you're free to advocate for a direct democracy, but it isn't what we have currently. Personally, I think our voting systems would have to be made a good deal more convenient and efficient before even considering it, and even then there are problems with the idea (see: California).

You're right about the indirect democracy, though it IS technically a constitutional republic. Doubters should take note in the fact that once a representative gets into office, they often follow the money, regardless what their constituents think.

Not the people I've spoken to... Most of the people I know don't like the bill because it supports abortion, restricts care for children with "pre-existing conditions", and a laundry list of issues that do not help children with special needs.

What's that? *Gasp, shock* The people you know and talk to tend to agree with you? Why, that's... utterly irrelevant. I don't give a shit about your anecdotal evidence.

Oh. The opinions of people I know is irrelevant because I know them and have actually spoken to them? How perfectly arrogant of you, to dismiss them out-of-hand.

Polls can be designed to come up with any result you should desire. It's as simple as phrasing the question a certain way and providing certain "answers" from which to choose. Generally, the mainstream media will disclose the results of a poll, but they never tell you what question was asked, what options were available for the respondents to choose from, nor are you told the method used to conduct the poll, which can bias the results significantly.

Because of all the variables involved, I rarely take the polls at face value, if ever.

Take a set of people that have special needs children, let them read the bill, and see what they think. I'm telling you that based on what I know from first hand knowledge, this "health care bill" is a complete and utter disgrace.

There are over 300 million people in this country, and I doubt your self-selected group of friends and acquaintances is a good representative sample, or large enough to be statistically meaningful.

Statistics mean nothing in Real Life. A law that forces citizens into buying into a contract or face jail (or fines, or both) is a BAD law. A law that makes taxpayers pay for a procedure that (most of the time) is NOT a "medical necessity" but one of convenience is a BAD law. A law that takes the "quality of life" decision out of the hands of the individual or the individual's family is a BAD law.

The most recent polls are somewhat evenly split as to whether the majority of the public supports or dislikes the health care bill (there may have been differences in how the questions were asked),

You haven't been paying attention to the news lately, then. Massachusetts elected their first Republican Senator in 40 years over this health care plan that was forced through Congress, because they were against the whole idea. Look at the election results (the only poll that matters), and you will see that it was hardly "somewhat evenly split".

but my point is it doesn't really matter, policy changes are up to the elected officials until the next round of elections, and by then most people will probably be aware that the Communist Death PanelsOMG!!1!! doom-and-gloom was nonsense.

Sigh. You've never heard of the Law of Unexpected Consequences, have you? If language exists that would allow such a thing, intended or no, then someone will take advantage of it. The Founding Fathers realized this, which is why they put the Tenth Amendment on the Constitution. Simply electing a representative to Congress that has a certain agenda is NOT "delegating" that agenda to Congress.

(I would say the abortion one w

Re:Lol.

[Wandering Idiot]

(I don't know who will even see this at this point, but despite the apparently unironic Palin quote in your sig you seem fairly sane, so what the hell...)

Oh. The opinions of people I know is irrelevant because I know them and have actually spoken to them? How perfectly arrogant of you, to dismiss them out-of-hand.

They're irrelevant as being representative of a large trend in the country as a whole, which you seemed to be using them as, in an attempt to counter my point that a significant percentage of those who didn't like the health care bill did so because it didn't go far enough if you look closer at the data. The same way I wouldn't claim to know that everyone just loves the health care bill because my personal circle of friends does.

Polls can have their problems, especially if done using biased questions as you said, but I'll take the overall view afforded by multiple independent polls over the anecdotal evidence of any one person's small group of non-random demographically and geographically isolated peers any day.

Take a set of people that have special needs children, let them read the bill, and see what they think. I'm telling you that based on what I know from first hand knowledge, this "health care bill" is a complete and utter disgrace.

I have my doubts you actually know this from personal experience as opposed to Sarah Palin's twitter feed, but nevermind. A far as I can tell, your argument is that the bill doesn't do enough to stop insurers from denying coverage to children with special needs by claiming pre-existing conditions. What? Isn't your entire point that you don't want the government regulating insurers to prevent them denying coverage, etc? You're reminding me of the people nonsensically shouting "keep the government out of my Medicare!"

Anyway, looking it up, apparently the language in the bill wasn't clear as to whether the coverage denial protection for children would take effect this year or 2014. The loophole is supposedly being closed by HHS regulations that will specfy this year, but rate increases will probably still be possible until 2014. Again, see above. I'm not sure how some protections for families with special needs children are worse than leaving them to the mercy of the insurance companies as is, but ok.

Statistics mean nothing in Real Life

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Short of asking every person in involved their opinion (which is what voting is supposed to do, although it isn't practical to do on a frequent basis at present), well-conducted polling is the best way to estimate the breakdown of opinions in the country as a whole. My statistical argument didn't have much to do with the merits of the bill itself, but with your ridiculous claim that a law being passed that you personally don't like is somehow "tyranny", despite it being done through proper procedures by duly-elected congressional representatives, and the bill itself or a stronger version of it being supported by many people in the country. Again, the argument that it isn't Constitutional doesn't have a leg to stand on in court by modern standards, so good luck with that.

A law that forces citizens into buying into a contract or face jail (or fines, or both) is a BAD law

I'm not that big on the idea of the individual mandate myself, but I can see the reasons for it, and it's a fine only. My opinion will basically depend on exactly what the exceptions for "financial hardship" will entail, as applying it to anyone who doesn't have insurance because they can't afford it seems decidedly counterproductive.

(I used to hate the idea of being forced to buy car insurance when I was younger, until I realized it wasn't primarily for my benefit, but for that of the other drivers I might hit, and it made more sense)

A law that makes taxpayers pay for a procedure that (most

Yeah no problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice national ID cards for our safety and you know just to be on the safe side we need a DNA database too, to prevent people from misusing this program...and hey we need to start monitoring your internet usage to prevent people from pretending to be you and setting up appoitments or chaning your information.

Yeah its nothing to be worried about, Im sure it will be all OK.

Re:Yeah no problem.

[Jahava]

Nice national ID cards for our safety and you know just to be on the safe side we need a DNA database too, to prevent people from misusing this program...and hey we need to start monitoring your internet usage to prevent people from pretending to be you and setting up appoitments or chaning your information.

Yeah its nothing to be worried about, Im sure it will be all OK.

So you're against the idea on account of that other things are bad?

Re:Yeah no problem.

[stonewallred]

Actually we need implants to both track our movement and those around us, along with micro recorders for video, sound, temperature, vital signs and chemical analysis of our body and our surroundings.That way we can get rid of the pesky needs for regular doctor visits under the new health care law because of real time monitoring of our vital signs and chemical balance and look at the money we can save with no need for judges or juries or lawyers anymore. If you commit a crime, it is right there on yours and your victims' recordings. We all know recording devices don't lie. And if you are not planning on doing anything wrong, you should not have a problem with this idea.You don't have a problem do you? Something you need to hide maybe? That's what thought. Thank you for signing this petition to have the government get started on this project.

Re:Yeah no problem.

[Planesdragon]

Yeah its nothing to be worried about, Im sure it will be all OK.

Actually, yeah.

If our government is not a tyranny, we have nothing to fear from them watching us.

If our government is a tyranny, they will watch us whether fear them or not.

So, nothing to worry about. Unless you have a quantum government, that can shift from non-tyranny to tyranny... but that NEVER happens. (Nope, never. Hitler wasn't elected, Russia wasn't mostly democratic before the Soviets siezed power, post-roman city-states never had the sheriff decided they were kings...)

Re:Yeah no problem.

[cgenman]

Considering we already have state-issued drivers licenses, Passports, and those useless Social Security Card things, really the only difference between a state ID and a national ID is competence. I can already get a ticket in Georgia and have it follow me directly to Massachusetts. Considering the hassle of moving a driver's license from one state to another, but the tickets follow you effortlessly, I welcome a national driver's license.

The thing I worry about is "unhackable" and "fraud-proof" ID cards. This from the people who gave you passports invisibly hackable from a distance of 3 feet. Heck, with a name like "fraud-proof ID cards," even I want to hack it.

Re:Yeah no problem.

[DMiax]

Well, to be honest Russia wasn't democratic at all before the people revolted a overthrew the government. It is similar to what happened in the US, but a century later, thus the leading ideology was not Illuminism but Communism which turned out to be quite worse.

Re:Yeah no problem.

[daem0n1x]

Russia wasn't mostly democratic before the Soviets siezed power

No, it really wasn't. It was a huge, tyrannical, miserable shithole.

Re:Yeah no problem.

[daem0n1x]

But among the countries that top the "surveillance society" world ranking are the UK and USA, both countries without ID card. It appears that your problem is not the ID card, it's your politicians.

Re:Yeah no problem.

[lkeagle]

If our government is not a tyranny, we have nothing to fear from them watching us.

I disagree. The government is just made up of people. And people, pardon me, are assholes...

National Drivers License

[frosty_tsm]

I know the idea of a national ID is scary in some ways, but the idea of federal standards for driving certification kind of appeals to me. I mean, they couldn't be more lax than they are here in CA (pass the written, pass the behind-the-wheel, see you in 50 years). From a driving safety standpoint, I wouldn't mind jumping through extra hoops to make sure the other people on the road are better trained.

Re:National Drivers License

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

The problem is that people can be as well trained as you want, they can be able to pass every test possible at the DMV. The trouble is once they get on the road they revert back to talking, texting, and general jackassery. On my 30 minute commute here in Northern Nevada (where we have more than our fair share of CA drivers) I've even made a game of counting every time I see somebody texting and driving. I have yet to have a zero at the end of the day.

Re:National Drivers License

[AuMatar]

How much more do you want? People need to travel, the transit system doesn't go everywhere and doesn't work well in many places it does go. Large amounts of America require a car to live in. Its not realistic to expect everyone to live within walking distance of everywhere they want to go. So they have to let the majority on the roads. And the fact is they'll drive anyway, licensed or not. So why add extra red tape to the process requiring money to set up and maintain? Lets be real here, a license doesn't allow you to drive- if ti did you'd have to swipe it to start a car. Its just a way to positively id someone who gets caught breaking the law while driving. Useful, but no reason to have an extremely high bar to get.

Re:National Drivers License

[Weedhopper]

I wonder what's more distracting, texting while driving or counting the number of people who are texting while driving (;

Re:National Drivers License

[FooAtWFU]

Be careful. If you make it too hard with too many hoops, then you'll see a rise in unlicensed drivers. The UK has a (modest) problem with this, actually, and very difficult/expensive licensing requirements.

Re:National Drivers License

[SomeJoel]

I wonder what's more distracting, texting while driving or counting the number of people who are texting while driving (;

Contemplating relative distraction levels is fairly distracting. I started to explain that to the adjuster, but then I got a phone call and I'm not sure what he said after that.

Re:National Drivers License

[frosty_tsm]

How much more do you want? People need to travel, the transit system doesn't go everywhere and doesn't work well in many places it does go. Large amounts of America require a car to live in. Its not realistic to expect everyone to live within walking distance of everywhere they want to go. So they have to let the majority on the roads. And the fact is they'll drive anyway, licensed or not. So why add extra red tape to the process requiring money to set up and maintain? Lets be real here, a license doesn't allow you to drive- if ti did you'd have to swipe it to start a car. Its just a way to positively id someone who gets caught breaking the law while driving. Useful, but no reason to have an extremely high bar to get.

You'll note I said training, not restrictions. I live in CA and know all too well how vital the car is to daily life.

Re:National Drivers License

[517714]

I wouldn't mind jumping through extra hoops to make sure the other people on the road are better trained.

Until you actually had to.

Re:National Drivers License

[frosty_tsm]

I wouldn't mind jumping through extra hoops to make sure the other people on the road are better trained.

Until you actually had to.

I actually do a lot to make sure I'm a well trained driver. The number of lives we lose to traffic accidents makes Iraq look like a picnic and makes Vietnam look like a blip (since that war ended and we continue to drive). Last year it was about 34k and the year before that, 38k (source).

Food for thought: would we have saved more American lives by trying to solve this problem than even bothering to fight the war on terror (costing in the trillions)? Would it have been possible to save 10% of those lives or more each year (3-4k), which would require the terrorists to execute a 9/11-sized attack once a year to offset?

I'm not an anti-war hippie, but it should make people stop and think.

Re:National Drivers License

[shermo]

You're wasting db space with that field. If you're only interested in zero or not zero make it a BOOL. There's no need for INT.

Re:National Drivers License

[QuestorTapes]

> ...the idea of federal standards for driving certification kind of appeals to me.

I assume you mean "good" standard for driving certification.

Unfortunately, good standards are no more likely on the Federal level than they are on the state level. A number of the biggest problem cases are political hot potatoes, such as driver age (both too young and too old), and the fact that outside of a relatively few large cities with good public transportation systems, getting around without a car is nearly impossible.

I know a number of people who, for physical reasons can't drive or walk long distances, and who find it enormously difficult to get to medical appointments and take care of grocery shopping. There is -no- public transportation alternative for them.

That problem was made the loss of small retailers and corner markets, replaced by big box stores and supermarkets, and the replacement of the small office general practitioner with the "medical group".

Politicians who want to get reelected are not going to put more people in this kind of a position.

Re:National Drivers License

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Yeah, I'll be the jackass who says it -- maybe you should be spending your time looking at the road and not inside of the cars next to you...

Re:National Drivers License

[Paleolibertarian]

Lets be real here, a license doesn't allow you to drive- if ti did you'd have to swipe it to start a car.

SHIT! Don't go putting ideas into their heads!

Re:National Drivers License

[Cajun Hell]

Of all the states, you picked California?! (The only worse examples you could have picked, would have been Alaska or Hawaii.) California happens to be a particularly geographically large state. Sure, lots of people make interstate road trips, but overall (this is a generalization, but it's a damn true one), the people who pay the price for bad Californian drivers are CALIFORNIANS. A Rhode Island resident has very little reason to care whether California drivers are good or bad. Since Californians largely bear the burden of bad Californian drivers, they are the perfect political entity to decide how well trained Californian drivers should be.

Sheesh, at least if you had used New Jersey or some state like that for your example, your argument for federal standards would have sounded a lot smarter.

Re:National Drivers License

[frosty_tsm]

Of all the states, you picked California?!

I pick California because I live in California and know how easy it is to get and maintain a drivers license.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[NeutronCowboy]

Maybe an actual Health Care Bill, rather than a frankensteinian Health Insurance Bill?

Good Idea

[medge_42]

If you introduce an ID card (basically formalising/simplifying your social security number system) and nationalise the driver's licenses the right wingers will freak and they will dedicate all their efforts in stopping it. This will allow the health care reforms to settle in and become accepted.

Finally, a proper social security card

[noidentity]

It's good we're finally going to get a proper social security card that is only used for the purpose of social security, and not as a general identification number that's treated as secret yet widely shared. No more will a social security card be used for other purposes.

Re:Finally, a proper social security card

[Cimexus]

Gah - sorry, modded you redundant, meant to click on insightful. Posting to undo moderation ... sorry.

Re:Finally, a proper social security card

[zoloto]

We shouldn't even have a social security card...

Timmay!

[Anonymous Coward]

and no big surprise, considering the practicalities of implementing massive changes in medical finance

What's the matter, didn't get enough page views on the healthcare non-article?

Re:How do Republicans support this?

[the linux geek]

This is primarily being pushed by Chuck Schumer, a liberal Democrat.

Just a bunch of hot air

[Attila Dimedici]

This proposal is just a bunch of hot air at this point. There is no bill introduced in either house of Congress that contains the provisions discussed in this article. This is just Lindsay Graham trying to ingratiate himself to the Democrats again. For those who think this would be used to keep illegal immigrants from receiving the benefits of this new health insurance bill, keep in mind, it is the Democrats who have been the most successful at getting their votes.

Re:Just a bunch of hot air

[Cwix]

That would be because they have a majority in both houses. But IMHO they actually haven't been that successful, If im not mistaken they originally hoped health-care would be done what middle of last year? If you cant even mobilize your own majority, your not doing it right.

Re:Just a bunch of hot air

[FutureDomain]

This is just Lindsay Graham trying to ingratiate himself to the Democrats again.

He shouldn't bother. We're throwing him out with the rest of the scumbags.

Re:Just a bunch of hot air

[Attila Dimedici]

Even with a majority they had to do things that are an abuse of the rules. Things that they said two years ago were unethical and wrong. Obama campaigned on not doing this sort of thing to pass "healthcare reform".

Re:Just a bunch of hot air

[Cwix]

You said

Democrats who have been the most successful at getting their votes

now you say

Even with a majority they had to do things that are an abuse of the rules.

Those two stances are hard to reconcile. For one, I never said they didn't abuse the rules. Next, it seems even if they did abuse the rules, they did pretty poorly at that too, they had a majority in both houses, and according to you they also broke rules.. if these two things are true, then the bill would have been passed months ago.

Re:Just a bunch of hot air

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, the Democrats have been more successful at getting the illegal immigrant vote than the Republicans. Even with a majority in Congress, they had to break rules because a significant number of the Democrats in Congress were reluctant to vote against the express wishes of their constituents.

Re:Just a bunch of hot air

[Cwix]

If they had decided to "break rules" why didnt this go through reconciliation.. MONTHS AGO?

Significant number? I believe in the senate there was what 5 - 10 (democrats) who refused to vote for it?

Express wishes of their constituents? http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

Ohh and illegal immigrant vote? Umm Im pretty certain illegal immigrants CANT VOTE

Re:Just a bunch of hot air

[Attila Dimedici]

Ohh and illegal immigrant vote? Umm Im pretty certain illegal immigrants CANT VOTE

You mean, the same way that they CANT BE HERE?

Re:Just a bunch of hot air

[Cwix]

You see you have to have ID to vote. You honestly think that large numbers of illegals actually find a way to vote? You also didnt answer ANY of my other arguments. Scare tatics and strawman attacks. If you cant answer my actual points, then your just making noise.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Terminal Saint]

I'll tell you as soon as healthcare actually gets nationalized.

Fraud proof?

[gilesjuk]

There's no such thing as fraud proof. Humans are involved in the process and humans are corruptible.

In fact, fraud proof makes it difficult to prove someone stole your identity if they some how manage to fraudulently apply for ID in your name.

Re:Fraud proof?

[misexistentialist]

2012: National ID Database concludes that humans are an unacceptable security risk. Deports them all to Mexico.

Re:Fraud proof?

[cgenman]

Most ID systems in this country accept a notarized birth certificate as proof of who you are. If you can acquire a real or fake birth certificate, you can leverage yourself into state ID cards, credit cards, and passports. As long as that is the basis for identification, a notarized piece of paper that has no uniquely identifying elements, fraud will still be reasonably easy for anyone determined enough.

National ID?

[DarkKnightRadick]

Didn't we already try this with RealID? Something that was uniformly rejected by almost every state in the Union? What's going to make it different now?

And no, I just ate dinner so I do not want to read the article. I am afraid it will just make me sick.

Re:National ID?

[kimvette]

What's different now is what Obama wants, Obama gets, even though 70%-80% of the people don't want it.

The best part of the health care bill is that Congress and the President are not subject to it; they get their own health care, alternative so social security, etc. and they never borrow from those funds like they do from the Medicare and Social Security funds.

Nice try

[HangingChad]

But wrong.

FTA: The proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina)...

Re:Nice try

[night_flyer]

Lindsay Graham is RINO, and has been considered as much for quite some time now.

Re:Nice try

[AuMatar]

ROFLMAO

You consider anyone to the left of Limbaugh a RINO, and you aren't sure about Rush. Graham votes with his party far more than 85% of the time, on a ranking of votes he's middle of the republican pack. I know you guys like mindless drones who spout the party line, but that's getting ridiculous. Is anyone who's ever had a conversation with a D now a RINO?

Re:Nice try

[night_flyer]

Amnesty for Illegals, Cap and Trade, and now National ID are BIG govt ideas

Re:Nice try

[Robin47]

ROFLMAO

You consider anyone to the left of Limbaugh a RINO, and you aren't sure about Rush. Graham votes with his party far more than 85% of the time, on a ranking of votes he's middle of the republican pack. I know you guys like mindless drones who spout the party line, but that's getting ridiculous. Is anyone who's ever had a conversation with a D now a RINO?

He didn't used to be but he is now. And He is my senator so I'm in a better position to know.

A deck of cards...

[nilbog]

So DHS is going to make us get national driver's licenses. Congress is going to make us get national ID cards. Next FDA is going to make us all have some card in order to eat and every government agency from coast to coast is going to require some new card.

So let's see who can be first to market with a portable ID-card-dex. "Let's see here's my FDA approval card that says I can eat... wait it's expired! Ahhh!"

Do we really want this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the years there have been number of larger polls concerning a national ID system. Each and every time the results have been very conclusive and clear cut: The vast majority of Americans is strongly opposing the establishment of a national ID system. The reasons range from privacy to practical, philosophical, and religious concerns. Instead of weakening our constitutional rights and taking away our privacy little by little, our representatives need to respect democratic opinion and decisions and the will of its own people and stop trying to push a national ID system on us. This has happened in the UK where people are finally waking up and protesting on the streets now, only that it's too late for them. We are not in the UK, China, or North Korea here. The US is a democratic country and our government and representatives need to respect that. Period.

Re:Do we really want this?

[jeff4747]

Yes, we do want this. Because we already have national ID cards. We just call them "Social Security Cards". They're on basic card stock with nothing remotely secure about them. Yet put someone's name and number on a blank card and you can really fuck with their life.

A national ID card would be an improvement, since it would increase the difficulty in creating a fake card.

Re:Do we really want this?

[Astro Dr Dave]

Instead of weakening our constitutional rights and taking away our privacy little by little, our representatives need to respect democratic opinion and decisions and the will of its own people and stop trying to push a national ID system on us. This has happened in the UK where people are finally waking up and protesting on the streets now, only that it's too late for them. We are not in the UK, China, or North Korea here. The US is a democratic country and our government and representatives need to respect that. Period.

Too late for that.

Oh, and by the way, The US is not a democracy -- it's a constitutional republic. The federal government is supposed to be limited to those powers directly granted in the Constitution. Not that anyone in power actually pays attention to that little detail...

Real ID

[JonBuck]

Didn't we already try it this past decade because of 9/11? The States said NO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#State_adoption_and_non-compliance

Damn You George Bush!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

I'll be glad when Obama is finally inaugurated!

Re:Damn You George Bush!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I fail to understand why nobody will just look at the facts. Where are the school records, the medical records, all the records that every. other. president. evar. has released??!

We can't even get an answer as to which hospital he was born in, so that it's lobby can be emblazoned in gold.

He's spent over 2 million of his own money keeping a $15 reprint of his actual birth certificate hidden away. I can't believe that people think a 'birth certificate' without a doctor's name/signature, attending nurse's name/signature, place of birth, etc. would be legitimate. A 'Certification of Live Birth' and a 'Birth Certificate' are not the same thing.

Hawii had become our 50th state in 1959 (BO supposedly born in 61), and was issuing Certification of Live Birth forms for anybody that came in wanting one, with or without proof a child had been born. Obama's mom had one generated when she got to Hawaii, well after his birth in Kenya, which is what automatically created the newspaper mentions of his birth.

Another funny thing, is the democrats in power had the nerve to hold a debate on whether John McCain (not my 1st choice, btw) was a 'natural born citizen' (due to his birth in Panama, on a US Military base), but laughed at the fact that Obama might not be one.

Considering ... what?

[wytcld]

The article says nothing about this proposal being in consideration of the nation's new health care plan. What's the logic that it would be? It makes sense in connection with immigration control and jobs. But the liberals don't care much if illegal immigrants get health care - which most of them could get under their home countries' national plans anyhow (Mexico has one), so it's not what they come here for. And the tea partiers don't think the trade off between a strong national id and freedom is worth it, even to help keep the immigrants out.

News flash. Unemployment is high. A kennel in Snohomish just posted a Craigslist ad for a minimum-wage part-time dogshit-shoveler, and got > 250 resumes in response. People really, really would like every one of those jobs back from the paperless immigrants. And that's why this national id thing - which even a liberal-leaner like me is against - is likely to fly in this climate. Health care plans are hardly a factor here.

Presumption of illegality

[DragonWriter]

US lawmakers "are proposing a national identification card, a 'fraud-proof' Social Security card required for lawful employment in the United States.

This essentially is just furthering the "presumption of illegality" -- the presumption that a person is not allowed to work in the United States.

This is a fairly intrusive, insulting to the legal worker, and unnecessarily burdensome on business set of requirements that have all come into place because Congress writes immigration laws that are broken-by-design, and fails to enforce them effectively.

If we'd fix the fundamental structure of our immigration system to deal with the underlying problems, there wouldn't be the problems that we keep getting these kinds of band-aid "fixes" (like I-9 requirements) for, which never work.

Re:Presumption of illegality

[cdrguru]

Why should the US be different than everywhere else on the planet? Try, just try, getting a job in any European country without proper paperwork. Can't be done. Show up in Mexico and apply for a job somewhere - you aren't going anywhere without whatever they consider to be proper documentation.

In the US it is today entirely different and we are getting our asses handed to us because of this difference. There are millions (around 25 from what I hear) of people out of work in the US and we are still importing cheap labor from Mexico, Central and South America to work. This means we have people literal starving on the streets and still people are coming here in and getting work.

You can say the border should be completely open and there should be no obstructions to free movement of people, goods and services. Fine - let's see some other places implement that strategy and the US can follow along after a while. Turns out that there is no place where it is as easy to just show up and get a job as in the US today. Documented or not, it doesn't really matter all that much for low-wage labor.

England has pretty much opened up to bringing in lots more people - except they are not able to get jobs and nobody will hire them, so they are squatting in people's garden sheds. Still, I guess this is a better life than in some parts of Eastern Europe.

Re:Presumption of illegality

[Vinegar Joe]

In the US it is today entirely different and we are getting our asses handed to us because of this difference.

Uhmmm.....maybe we should simply enforce our existing immigration laws?

Re:Presumption of illegality

[frank_adrian314159]

This is a fairly intrusive, insulting to the legal worker, and unnecessarily burdensome on business set of requirements that have all come into place because Congress writes immigration laws that are broken-by-design, and fails to enforce them effectively.

How are you going to "enforce them effectively" if you can't positively and quickly identify those who are allowed to be in/work in the country? I know... We'll just round up anyone who looks Hispanic or speaks with a funny accent and send them to Mexico (or China or Russia or some random Middle Eastern country or...).

Re:Presumption of illegality

[DragonWriter]

Why should the US be different than everywhere else on the planet?

Because "everyone else does it" isn't a good excuse.

In the US it is today entirely different and we are getting our asses handed to us because of this difference.

No, its not different in the US. The US has very clear and documentation requirements (the I-9 requirements), which had no effect on the problem, because the problem with US immigration policy isn't work documentation requirements, its the basic structure of the immigration policies.

You can say the border should be completely open and there should be no obstructions to free movement of people, goods and services.

True, I could say that, but I didn't. I said we need to fix the fundamental structure of our immigration system to deal with the underlying problems, and that until we did that, the repeated efforts to deal with the problem by rejiggering documentation requirements for work based on the presumption of illegality were going to continue to inconvenience law-abiding workers and employers without doing anything about the problems they are notionally aimed at fixing.

A simple first step would be to, without changing overall legal immigration limits, remove the cap on immigration in the limited categories from any one individual country. That cap, alone, causes countries where there are large numbers of people who both want to come to the US and who are sponsored by family here to face decade-plus queues for legal immigration. If we are going to have an immigration policy that notionally prioritizes family unification (because having more family here reduces transfer payments, because it gives immigrants and naturalized citizens already here greater ties to the country, and because people having stronger family support networks here are less likely to consume public resources) it makes no sense to have structure our policy so that, with all the features that exist to promote that priority, there is one that absolutely frustrates it.

Shifting to soft caps in the legal categories, where applicants could pay a fee (which could be paid on their behalf by, e.g., sponsors in the U.S.) to bypass the queues might also help reduce the incentive to immigrate illegally while mitigating costs associated with the absolute level of immigration.

Ihre Ausweis, BITTE!!!!!!!

[MarkvW]

This is not freedom. Contact your senator and let them know how you feel. This is the first step to wholesale governmental intrusion in your life. Government will keep discovering new uses for the card--and any one particular use only needs a majority to pass. You may groove on the immigration use now, but what if you're in the minority opposing the next use some whacked-out legislator proposes???

Re:Ihre Ausweis, BITTE!!!!!!!

[jeff4747]

You're 70 years too late. We're already all numbers (SSN). Might as well slap a picture on the card and call it a 'national ID card'.

Fraud proof

[shadowbearer]

  That's the funniest thing I've read today.

  You know what is really, really shameful?

  That not only are our elected representatives too ignorant, for the most part, to understand why this is a stupid idea; they are so arrogant that they won't even seek out opinions from the people who work in the industry, and know that there is not, and never will be, any such thing as a "unhackable" ID.

  It's been said before, in many forms, by many people, and I've said it on this site more than once in the past, but I'll say it again (refined it since the last time)

  No matter how smart you are, no matter how well you implement a piece of technology, you will always be defeated, if not by another human out of the seven billion available, then by teams of people working together." - old form was "No matter how smart you are, there is always somebody smarter."

    I can't and won't claim credit for it, but it should be a basic natural law of sentience, dammit.

SB

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[kismet666]

I'm pretty pumped up, its nice when democracy leads to a little social good.

Didn't this just come up in immigration bill?

[schwit1]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/09/1310210

It's part of the fantasy

[copponex]

It's the same reason militia groups train in the woods. They like to pretend that they could defend themselves against the United States Armed Forces. It's simply a distraction against the things that really protect freedom, like voting, community organizations, or being an active citizen in the Athenian sense.

The standing army is used for foreign coup d'etats instead of civil wars on home soil. They learned a long time ago that giving you the "choice" of entertainment, fast food joints, cars, and clothes is far more effective distraction from participatory democracy than direct government violence.

In the fantasized bleak future, the government wins because they have a national ID card. In reality, you are already owned by your debt. You either plead fealty to the system in exchange for access to material goods, and live and die by your credit report, or you suffer the consequences.

Re:It's part of the fantasy

[stonewallred]

Not worked myself in almost 4 years. Sold my business when I got divorced and did not feel like running it anymore. Been sort of kinda going to school for the last two, sort of kinda because I take the classes I want to take in the number that I want to take them. And all of my school expenses, living expenses and anything else, for two years it was women, wine and song lol, I buy comes out of my pocket. I have a paid for home, three vehicles (truck, car and my last service van) and my credit card usually has between $45.00 to $100.00 bucks on it each month. Some people don't live or die by their credit reports, nor are they crushed under staggering consumer debt.

Re:It's part of the fantasy

[fredjh]

I have to laugh, because I don't give a flying leap about my credit report. Not all of us are that stupid to get ourselves buried in debt, and those that did have no one to blame but themselves... certainly not the "gummint."

Re:It's part of the fantasy

[copponex]

I have to laugh, because I don't give a flying leap about my credit report.

What are you, a teenager? You need good credit to buy a house, a car, to apply for a job, to get loans for higher education, and even for security clearances.

Not all of us are that stupid to get ourselves buried in debt, and those that did have no one to blame but themselves... certainly not the "gummint."

Who convinced you that you weren't part of the government?

Re:It's part of the fantasy

[finity]

Ha, I love this. My gut reaction is to call you delusional, but upon further inspection I must call you brilliant. Your Noam Chomsky quote is great too.

Re:It's part of the fantasy

[copponex]

Everyone lives or dies by their credit reports. Good credit gets you everything from cheaper insurance rates to security clearances. For some people, it's great. For those who start out in the hole or have been affected by illness or the loss of a spouse or have been defrauded by an insurance company, it's not so great.

You may not know it, but you have no right to compel any credit bureau to produce documentation proving the debt. That's a far more important issue than pretending that the government isn't already illegally wiretapping you or tracking you by your social security number. So, instead of voting for someone or running for office or helping out with a campaign in order to end the true losses of privacy and justice, people are kept busy fighting something as meaningless as a standardized ID.

Re:It's part of the fantasy

[fredjh]

I'm 43, I own a house and two cars, and any decent lender will do manual underwriting.

Re:It's part of the fantasy

[copponex]

Indeed.

I save my anger for our bankrupt liberal intelligentsia of which, sadly, I guess I am a member. Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky’s “Notes From Underground.” They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence. They, like Dostoevsky’s depraved character, have come to believe that the “conscious inertia” of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/liberals_are_useless_20091206/

Re:It's part of the fantasy

[copponex]

Iraqis and Afghanis have been at war for a long time. Vietnam had been battling the Chinese for centuries. The militia groups have some fancy weapons, but they are too dependent on fuel and other vulnerable resources, and have never been shot at in most cases.

In modern urban warfare, large armies have a disadvantage, especially when they are abroad. The rural areas likely occupied by militias would be mowed over with little fuss. It isn't like Vietnam where you're lost in a jungle without air support, getting ambushed from a vast network of tunnels that the locals have dug over decades.

Militias could fight with low energy guerrilla style surprise attacks, but every time more than three of them marched together, they'd get tagged and wasted pretty quickly. Cut power to the surrounding neighborhood, and they'll get turned in. In most cases, regional SWAT and FBI would have more than enough to take them out. Don't confuse weekend warriors with little aphorisms on their pickup trucks for the mujaheddin.

Government can be effective

[Spy Handler]

Unfortunately, being the U.S. Government, they will no doubt pull the same sort of stupidity

Nothing is fraud-proof. Nothing is bullet-proof either. However you can make something bullet-resistant. How resistant is commensurate with the amount of effort you put into it.

People love saying government is stupid and can never do anything right, but that's not true with everything. Currency is one example: there is enough political will and a real-world need to prevent counterfeiting (fraud). Government puts a good deal of effort into preventing counterfeiting, and the penalty is quite harsh and is well-enforced. While not 100% fraud-proof, they have done a pretty good job. I have not had a problem with being given counterfeit money recently, and I don't know of anyone who has.

Re:Government can be effective

[stonewallred]

Photoshop 5, a good scanner and good printer, some bleach and some 10 dollar bills, and some time. And with very little work you can have a stack of 10s changed into 100s that will pass the pen test anywhere you take it. Big problem in my area of the country. I won't take 100 from the bank, much less a person.

Re:Government can be effective

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

Nothing is fraud-proof. Nothing is bullet-proof either. However you can make something bullet-resistant. How resistant is commensurate with the amount of effort you put into it.

People love saying government is stupid and can never do anything right, but that's not true with everything.

I agree that government has done a pretty good job with currency (great example, by the way), but when people pitching an idea say "it's fraud-proof!" they automatically drop several notches in my "how much do I want to trust you" scale. You'd think that they'd have consulted with some security people before going out and running their mouths.

Saying "it's fraud-proof" doesn't help when, 10 seconds after the details of your proposal go public, you've got security geeks tweeting/posting innovative fraud ideas that won't be caught by your awesome, unbreakable system. Maybe it would be best to start by saying "fraud-resistant" and then educate the general public about security and statistics.

(Just kidding, I know that's as impossible as fraud-proof ID. I'll shut up now and content myself with watching Security Clusterfuck Theater's production of their national ID play.)

Re:Government can be effective

[Ed Peepers]

If it's undetectable, doesn't that make it a $100 bill?

Re:Government can be effective

[dargaud]

Currency is one example: there is enough political will and a real-world need to prevent counterfeiting (fraud). Government puts a good deal of effort into preventing counterfeiting

You haven't picked the best example: the US dollar is the easiest money to counterfeit out of all the countries (more or less). That with being just 2 colors on basically plain paper. Look at the Euro or any developing nation banknotes and you'll see bases of paper+fabric+metal+plastic printed in multiple colors, with holograms, transparencies, 3D thickness, etc... Why the dollar is so 'cheap' to make I have no idea.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[codepunk]

I think it is a fantastic idea I get to drop my expensive health care insurance policy. The fine is far less than I pay a year and with premium increases it will only get more so. A insurance company will not be able to deny me coverage which is a killer deal. So I don't get insurance, pay a small fine and when I get sick then I will get a policy.

I don't see the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

really, you should travel more. here in europe our gobernments have had track of our IDs for decades and we have social security, that will cover me for instance, if i travel to the US (it will pay the costs of any injury i might have and your hospitals will treat it as if it were an insurance company). so what? is anyone coming home to kill me because he knows a number related to my name?

i can tell you the problem: fear.

afraid of someone who's got your ID number? so what? I show my ID every night I go out, I show it every time I pay plastic, and so on, and... nothing goes wrong. same with my social security card, and even if i dont have it, if i have a health problem i know i can go to the hospital and they will take care of me. when im capable of, they will ask for an ID, ssec card or something, but i will be alive. and don't start moaning about inmigrants, 'cause Spain is being called the "door of Europe" in the northern Africa countries, and we still have no problems dealing with illegals coming in all the time..

and if you are about to say i misspelled something, yeah probably I did, English is not my mother language.

cheers all, and do be so afraid of helping your neighbours fgs

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Chris Burke]

What, you think this National ID card idea spontaneously appeared when the health care bill was passed? LOL, haven't payed much attention for the last, um, forever, have you?

The Powers That Be are always looking for a reason to push a national ID card. After 9/11 there was a big push for it, and regularly ever since, but it was defeated because even at our most paranoid and batshit crazy we knew better than to let such a thing pass. Just like this proposal will go nowhere as well.

Look, you want to stop Obamacare from resulting in a National ID card? It's easy:

Stop caring that an illegal might receive medical treatment, just like you're going to have to learn to stop caring that a poor person will receive medical treatment. The only way the ID card has gotten any traction is as a way to stop illegals from receiving benefits, i.e. as a result of the same people who are against health care reform.

And if you're confused as to how treating illegal immigrants will fail to bankrupt us, it's the same as with poor people: They already are receiving treatment, but at the ER, not at a regular doctor.

This story probably came from FOX news

[theaveng]

Therefore I refuse to hear it.

(switches to MSNBC). Ahh yes. They are telling me that this National ID card is simply like a drivers' license, therefore it's a-okay. Nothing dangerous about a drivers license. (sigh). I love the calming lies of MSNBC flickering on my screen. It's just like when mom told me locking the windows would keep me safe from bad people, and they couldn't possibly get it.

Haaa-uummmmmm.

Arthur: I think that TV just sighed.
Marvin: Ghastly, isn't it? All the channels have been programmed to have a cheery and sunny disposition, even when reporting bad news.

Not far from the truth.

[rickb928]

The Mayor of new York city wants to ban salt from restaurant kitchens on the grounds that his residents' health will improve. As if he has the right to tell them wnat to eat.

Soft drink makers are removing 'sugary' drinks from school vending machines, mostly to head off demands that they provide something 'healthy'.

Insurance companies already charge you more for health insurance if you smoke tobacco. When will they start charging more for obesity, especially if they ask you to lose weight, and you just refuse the request. No defense that you're 'glandular' or that it 'runs in your family'.

Is it too much of a stretch to see our shiny new healthcare system bent under the weight of the inevitable costs, and start looking for ways to avoid and reduce these burdens? When does the government tell you that your rattly old knee will have to do because it is worn due to your excess weight? Or your predeliction for playing softball three nights a week? Or that nasty spill you took at Aspen last winter? Your own damned fault, you know. Shoulda known better.

Likewise, isn't it sensible to not sink a lot of money into someone who is overweight, diabetic, with high cholsterol, if they have had their third heart attack and need quadruple bypass. When does a cost-benefit analysis become acceptable?

And how would the government gather enough information to 'assess' your health risk and cost? Well, they have to start by being able to identify you. Not too hard now, with the SSN. Much easier if just walking into a government healthcare clinic pings your RFID card and you are known. KNOWN.

How long before they just want to 'understand' the data, and ask McDonalds to let them put readers in their stores? Of course they link the data from speed cameras to your license, and then to your ID. After all, chronic speeding has to be a risk factor for more than your wallet.

As a landlord, I get a lot of potential tenants that can't rent from a complex due to a criminal record. DUI is very common, but protective orders due to a divorce are also common. I feel for these people - it doesn't take much to get a record that haunts you everywhere. Just an angry spouse and a sympathetic DA who wants to put an end to domestic violence. You don't even have to be violent.

And how do I avoid renting to illegal immigrants? Well, if they are employed, I verify that their employer did the eVerify thing. If they aren't employed, well, that's tuff. Sorry, I can't yet afford to rent for free.

Re:Not far from the truth.

[daem0n1x]

You guys have such a fertile imagination! Why don't you go to Hollywood? You'll get rich pretty soon.

You must have a very nasty government. In my country we've had socialised medicine for decades and ID cards for centuries. I never heard about any of the situations you mentioned. It's just ultra-paranoid made up shit.

Re:Not far from the truth.

[rickb928]

You make a good point. But your country has had socialised medicine for decades, and no doubt has resolved the initial problems and has a working system.

Here in the U.S., we are not a socialised state in most regards, and have a healthy (IMHO) suspicion of our government's ability to deliver or manage healthcare without significant waste and abuse. If we continue down this path, I suspect it will be fine. In a few decades. But the debate here is really about what sort of nation we are, and what sort of government we have and should have. We are not a socialist state. If our people decide to change that, there is a process to accomodate that. Our current Administration seems bent on making these changes without actually indulging in the process that would, in my opinion, make it actually legal (constitutional in our vernacular).

This must be an entirely entertaining debate to the rest of the world. Here, it is more important than that. But your assurance is, I assume, that socialised medicine is not necessarily bad. I agree. It's just, IMHO not yet legal in the U.S. We have rules. They are different than yours. That's all. And the natural resistance to change for many of us, though I am not afflicted with that defect in this area.

Thanks anyways. Your response is appreciated!

It's an interesting question

[starseeker]

As the technology to collect and manage information becomes ever more inexpensive, it becomes more and more of an effort to AVOID having data available to the government in such a way that it can be abused. When things get to the point where the drivers-license level data for every person in the USA can be causally tossed onto a thumb drive and taken to the next meeting, it becomes VERY hard to NOT use that data.

Well intentioned uses of such data abound, and some will be not only well intentioned but actually helpful (it is quite probable, for example, that correct use of a national DNA database WOULD allow many crimes to be solved that are not currently solved, just as fingerprint databases have been so useful.) Abuse of this data (particularly if the correctness of the data is trusted too much) by those in power is the counterpoint, and that is equally real (and equally scary). The problem is, the easier it gets to collect data the harder it is to be SURE it's thrown away if its intended to be thrown away. From some of the stores Slashdot has run about Britain, once they get ahold of your DNA they hang onto it, period. From their point of view, it might be useful in the future and its harmless sitting there in a database if its never used. If the agents of the system and those making the laws could be fully trusted, this might even be true. The problem is neither requirement holds. Law enforcement isn't perfect, and laws aren't either.

The balance of society is between empowering enforcers of the law to catch criminals and limiting the damage they can do when those enforcers go astray. My guess is given technological trends, the balance in the information game is going to have to shift from restriction of available information to stronger punishment for misuse and weaker assumptions about the automatic correctness of any personal info database. It's going to become too easy to collect too much information, and once collected it's very hard to uncollect it. Eventually, things will reach the point where a desire to NOT have your information on record will be an automatic flag, kinda like how the fuzzy areas on Google Maps are an automatic flag of "hey, there might be something interesting there." No idea were all this will lead, but I have a feeling technology will compel us to find out.

One though that might be worth thinking about - if there has to be a national database of all this stuff, have it widely distributed and copied at many locations, so that it's extremely difficult to push a universal change through any mechanism except one that makes records of the change (sort of a subversion database for law enforcement records - no anonymous changes and every change logged, as well as all historical database states being preserved. If records are ever changed erroneously, make it extremely difficult to do this without it being clear WHO did it)

This was a given LONG ago

[WindBourne]

Nearly every country has a national ID. Now, America is larger than nearly all others, but there are good reasons to have a LIMITED use ID. In particular, for gov. benefits as well as jobs.

No, really, it's a GREAT idea! Finally!

[starglider29a]

Once we have this Unique ID, a primary key in a Person's Table, many avenues are open to us! And high time...

1. Use the card, dongle, RFID chip, W/E to authenticate into your computer! No more stupid passwords!
2. Use it log into your ISP, so that they can know it's you, and ensure your safety on the internet. Mostly by providing the public portion of your identity everywhere you go, which hackers will not be able to duplicate. No more can they get into your bank accounts, those cute 'Site Keys' which show pictures that only you will know have been obviated.
3. Let's be frank. No one cares bout Pr0n anymore. surf away. And instead of surfing anonymously, surf "Securely ID'd". That is so much better.
4. Find and banish the haX0rz, KraX0rz, Phishers and Nigerians! If they can't get online without identifying themselves, they'll go back to traditional crime.
5. The best feature of all of this is the "Net License" we can keep anyone harmful off the wires and leave us good people to surf without a care.

Ok, how many of you read this far without picking up the sarcasm?

"no surprise"?

[Lemming Mark]

No surprise they're considering this given the current social and political climate, maybe. And perhaps the healthcare bill looks like an expedient motivator for it. I can't see the argument that the heathcare bill is responsible for ID cards, though. The UK has had a functional National Health Service for ages (the bill originally came into force in 1948) and hasn't needed ID cards to facilitate it. I understand that the new US healthcare proposals are substantially different but even so, surely private medical insurance has successfully been managed without ID cards for years - you still need to know who you're treating, why can't similar techniques work? I'm skeptical of the link here ...

You mean RealID?

[BlueBoxSW.com]

That was passed as part of the patriot act?

Simple solution for all this

[WindBourne]

If somebody comes in with insurance and ID, you treat them. If they do not have insurance or ID, then you call in ICE while you treat them. And depending on what country you are in, that is the standard, OR, they will simply refuse to treat you.

security is the problem

[DaveGod]

There's plenty government etc conspiracy theories but the #1 concern is just how high value a target a centralised personal information resource is. It also means the inevitable situation where the ID card is always assumed to be correct and all other indicators to the contrary must be false. If you rely 100% on one thing that is not 100% secure then not only are you completely insecure, but you don't have any way of knowing that fact.

Re:How do Republicans support this?

[TubeSteak]

This is primarily being pushed by Chuck Schumer, a liberal Democrat.

It's nothing that the Bush Administration's RealID program wasn't going to do.
The only difference is that it's going to get tied to your Social Security number instead of your Driver's License.

Re:How do Republicans support this?

[jmac_the_man]

The teabaggers would go ballistic, these are people ready to shoot at the census takers.

The incident you're referring to was in fact a suicide, not an attack by anyone, and certainly not by Tea Party activists.

Just big government

[ZonkerWilliam]

I can see it now, "oh you aren't going to vote for us in the up coming election? Oh look here, your N-ID card has expired, sorry no work for you!"

Re:Passport differenes?

[Cwix]

If you don't travel outside the country, you don't need a passport.

On slippery slopes

[pentalive]

Sure the worst might not happen, but why enable it and take the chance?

It's called a slippery slope for a reason. It could happen and perhaps it is not all that unlikely.

Re:On slippery slopes

[CyberDragon777]

It's called a slippery slope for a reason. It could happen and perhaps it is not all that unlikely.

Some day Arpanet may become a primary source of information for people. ...But maybe some government will try to use it for censorship!
We should keep mailing floppies!

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[a whoabot]

Why pay the fine? There is a religious exemption. You have religious beliefs which prevent you from getting insurance. When you get sick -- change your religion. I mean, obviously it's not the right religion if you get sick.

We already have a national ID

[TCPhotography]

I got mine using a photo ID (state drivers license), birth certificate, Social Security Card, and alternate photo.

It's called a Passport.

Re:We already have a national ID

[LeadSongDog]

It's called a Passport

Get one for granny now so she can escape the country when "the committee" thinks her health coverage is too expensive.

Have you ever had your ID stolen?

[tlambert]

Have you ever had your ID stolen?

Mine was. Then they put a vacation hold on my mail at the post office, with the intent of collecting credit card and other information later.

It turns out that there is no revocation mechanism for the ID cards we have today. The DMV desk might as well have a sign printed on it that says "This Side Toward Enemy", as you're not going to get a different ID number out of them so they can tell the difference between you and someone who has stolen your ID and used it in the commission of a crime. That might be as simple as check fraud at a supermarket; there's no way your local supermarket is going to have a biometric identification system to verify that the card belongs to you. But the fraud will be tagged to you with the same presumption of guilt that red light cameras have today.

Luckily I got the person caught and got my ID back before it was successfully used to take out a line of credit at a bank. And if you think a bank will have a biometric scanner, either, you are mistaken, since they don't even have a way to verify that a drivers license isn't fake, and all they would technically need for that is a mag stripe scanner (which they have), and an internet connection (which they have).

There's absolutely no benefit to this thing to you, and there won't be until and unless there's a revocation mechanism, and a local verification mechanism, which includes validation and revocation.

And that means the central database they keep claiming we're not going to have.

-- Terry

The Problem Here...

[TaleSpinner]

...is more government power. Once the national ID is in place it will be expanded. First ID, then driver's license, then credit card, then key card, and so on, and it will not be long before the United States government has a record of everything you buy, every place you enter or leave, every place you can enter, and, eventually, everything you do or say. This is not a slippery slope argument because we are already far down that slippery slope sliding on our asses at bewildering speed to the rocks at the bottom. Picture yourself living in a world where everything you do or say or possibly, not too long hence, even think, is being continuously monitored by the almighty government. This isn't just a conspiracy theory any more. It's a policy. A $500 ticket every time your car drifts a couple of miles an hour over the speed limit, spot checks scanning your (effectively naked) body for weapons or contraband, not just at airports but lots of other places that "need security", the government monitoring your fat intake, your cholesterol level, how well your kidneys function, how much nicotine is in your blood. Don't think so? Socialized medicine is all the excuse needed to directly regulate everything you eat, everything you drink, every product you ingest, rub on, carry.

We live in a country with literally millions of pages of laws, rules, regulations, and requirements that apply to every citizen. Now picture what it will be like when the government is finally able to completely enforce every single tiny, seemingly inconsequential rule, law, regulation, or requirement that's on the books. Tell me how anyone will be able to get through a day without being cited for multiple violations of laws that you can't even know exist because no one can read that much material.

I'm sorry. That's not a free country. That's not America. That's not what our forefathers wanted to leave for their posterity. And it's no place I want to live. So where will we be able to go, those of us who still want freedom or privacy or the right to make decisions for ourselves? Why do any of you even want to live in such a country? Make no mistake. That is where Obama is going to end us up. If he's elected to a second term, you will see all of the above put into place.

And Congress did not "give us" the right to medical care. Rights are intrinsic to each and every person, they cannot be granted and when they are taken away there is tyranny. Rights are negative things, we need them so we can stop other people from doing things to us that we don't like. When you turn a right around and make it a positive thing, like the "right of medical care" then you also put into place a requirement of service from someone else to implement that right. You're "right" then enslaves that person. That's not freedom. And that's a fact.

Re:The Problem Here...

[Reziac]

Talespinner says:

Rights are negative things, we need them so we can stop other people from doing things to us that we don't like. When you turn a right around and make it a positive thing, like the "right of medical care" then you also put into place a requirement of service from someone else to implement that right. Your "right" then enslaves that person. That's not freedom.

Exactly so. (Reposting and emphasis added for greater visibility.)

Re:The Problem Here...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Socialized medicine is all the excuse needed to directly regulate everything you eat, everything you drink, every product you ingest, rub on, carry.

I have bad news for your paranoia. That's already true. It's been true for a century. It's called the Food and Drug Administration and its budget in 2010 is 2.353 billion dollars. We've been spending tax money on it since 1906. Everything you eat is approved by them, everything you rub on is approved by them, most of what you drink is approved by them (or all of it, if you don't drink tap water). And if you do drink tap water, hey, we got ya covered. It's called the Environmental Protection Agency, which sets the guidelines that the states use to enforce water quality. (The feds don't actually enforce EPA water quality guidelines. States do.)

And guess what. Both of those pieces of GOVERNMENT are GOOD FOR YOU. They keep you from getting mad cow disease. They keep you from dying of ringworm. They keep you from being exposed to toxic levels of hexachlorobutadiene (which can damage your kidneys and liver enough to eventually kill you if you drink water contaminated with it, or even bathe in water contaminated with enough of it.) They work amazingly well to limit your exposure to a thousand noxious diseases, parasites, and industrial toxins, which keeps you healthy, not to mention alive.

But there you sit, prattling away on the internet like the mouthpiece you are, dutifully fulfilling your function as useful idiot, manfully fighting just as hard as you can against your own interests.

You'd think with a UID that low you'd have learned something by now...

Re:The Problem Here...

[TaleSpinner]

The FDA was a good idea that has already overreached. It has added so much cost and delay to the development of new drugs and new treatments that its opportunity cost is almost literally too large to calculate. People die while it dithers. Most of the progress in HIV came only when its rules were loosened to permit faster tracks for drugs that combat it. So don't hold it up as an example of great government.

Oh and by the way the FDA does not test for mad cow disease. You're only safe from that because you live in America.

> You'd think with a UID that low you'd have learned something by now...

I have.

It'll never fly...

[EmagGeek]

...after all, as a federal employee, won't Obama finally have to produce an authentic, long-form birth certificate, signed by the physician who delivered him and bearing an authentic raised seal?

Exactly... it's not gonna happen

Re:It'll never fly...

[jeff4747]

Lemme tell you a little story:

I have an "authentic, long-form birth certificate, signed by the physician who delivered him and bearing an authentic raised seal". It was issued in California when I was born.

You know who won't accept it of proof of my birth? The State of California. Or, for that matter, any of the other 49 states, nor the federal government.

Why? The thing is a forger's wet dream. The blank form was a xerox of a xerox of a xerox (and so on), that was filled out on an IBM Selectric typewriter. There is an indecipherable scrawl in the space for the doctor's signature. Yes there's a seal, but it's really hard to make out after being compressed by a stack of papers in my parent's safety deposit box for decades. And I could order a copy of that seal from thousands of places on the Internet for less than $40.

What will these states take as proof of my birth? A certified abstract of birth, issued by the State of California. Much like the one Obama put out on the Internet. Why? It actually has some anti-counterfeiting technology in it.

You know who doesn't have a birth certificate from a US state? John McCain. He was born in Panama (he's a citizen, since he was born to US parents).

So, can we stop the birther bullshit and get on with trying to govern?

Re:It'll never fly...

[Cwix]

Hmm perhaps you don't realize that the birth certificate you can find damn near anywhere online, is a legal birth certificate for the state of Hawaii.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp You'll note how well snopes goes into this "conspiracy" For example, two different Hawaii newspapers printed a birth announcement for him. The whole birther thing, well its bull. I'm sorry.

Snopes sources should help you some.

Hinkelman, Michael. "Judge Rejects Montco Lawyer's Bid to Have Obama Removed from Ballot." Philadelphia Daily News. 25 October 2008.

Koppelman, Alex. "Sex, Lies and Creatively Edited Interviews with Sarah Obama." Salon. 5 December 2008.

Nakaso, Dan. "Obama's Certificate of Birth OK, State Says." Honolulu Advertiser. 1 November 2008.

Nakaso, Dan. "Hawaii: Obama Birth Certificate Is Real." Honolulu Advertiser. 27 July 2009.

Nakaso, Dan. "Hawaii officials confirm Obama's Original Birth Certificate Still Exists." Honolulu Advertiser. 28 July 2009.

Voell, Paula. "Teacher from Kenmore Recalls Obama Was a Focused Student." The Buffalo News. 20 January 2009.

Associated Press. "State Department of Health Declares Obama Birth Certificate Legal." Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 31 October 2008.

Associated Press. "Challenge to Obama Is Dismissed." The New York Times. 5 March 2009.

The Economist. "Born Under a Bad Sign." 28 November 2008.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[codepunk]

Yes that is a fantastic idea, I hope you suckers like paying my medical bills.

With thunderous applause...

[Gothmolly]

is how freedom dies, btw.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Totenglocke]

The majority of the citizens were against the bill (especially easy to see when enough people in 38 states are pissed off about it that the states are planning on suing the federal government). Even large numbers of people who voted for the Democrats who forced this bill on the American people didn't support it. So I ask, what was democratic about this bill? The will of the people was not represented. The will of a group of politicians was supported.

why not ...

[bizitch]

we are no longer free people anyway

why stop at id cards?

how soon before the tatoos and the RFID implants?

Big mama government needs to keep track of all her babies ... cradle to grave

Re:why not ...

[PPH]

Bar code tattoos.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[TubeSteak]

And if you're confused as to how treating illegal immigrants will fail to bankrupt us, it's the same as with poor people: They already are receiving treatment, but at the ER, not at a regular doctor.

I remember reading an article in the NY Times about hospitals that started setting up ER frequent fliers with regular doctor visits and perscription drugs.

Because the hospital was going to eat the cost of their care anyways, the hospital found it was cheaper to manage the indigients' care through preventative medicine than to deal with them in the vastly more expensive ER setting.

Removing 10 million people? Good luck.

[sjbe]

If I find a person in my home without my permission (i.e. an intruder), I'm going to warn him to leave voluntarily. If he refuses then he will eat a bullet.

Someone immigrating to find work (legally or not) isn't remotely the same thing as someone breaking into your personal house. Nice sound bite but it has nothing to do with the actual problems.

I see no reason to treat intruders from Mexico or Canada or any part of the World differently - Leave voluntarily or face the consequences.

And that is basically what happens. Problem is that there are too many immigrants coming. The police forces are overwhelmed. Want to send them all home tomorrow? Go ahead. Good luck finding them all. And when you do enjoy your higher prices for food, construction, manufactured goods and pretty much anything else you want to buy. You take 10 million people out of the economy suddenly that is going to hurt you too.

Birthright?

[sjbe]

This being MY country and MY birthright, fuck them.

Your birthright? Your ancestors were immigrants too. There were people here for 10,000 years before your ancestors came here and claimed land that wasn't theirs originally. You don't have any more intrinsic right to be here than anyone else.

Re:Birthright?

[DrLang21]

Just like our Cro-Magnon ancestors stole Europe from the Neanderthal? Seriously, at some point you gotta let go of the past. Or should my white ass be considered African American because Cro-Magnon originated in Africa?

What?

[gbutler69]

Why? Do you not believe we should have borders? Do you not think that American Citizens should be the benficiaries of our laws, taxes, infrastructure? If you say no to either of these questions, then you must mean that we should be able to enforce our laws, whether they be environmental, working condition, criminal, civil, or whatever related in all other countries. Also, we should collect taxes from all other countries citizens. No?

Re:What?

[jo42]

Borders and nations are artificial, man-made. They enforce a low-brow, low-IQ "us vs. them"' mentality and thus belong in the dark ages.

Let's see how fast this gets modded down as a troll.

Re:What?

[ArcherB]

Borders and nations are artificial, man-made. They enforce a low-brow, low-IQ "us vs. them"' mentality and thus belong in the dark ages.

Let's see how fast this gets modded down as a troll.

Really? I thought borders were to show where one government's laws end and another's begin. You know, there are governments that will force you to pray five times a day, by killing you and your family if you don't, right? Provided that those governments exist at the will of the people, I'm OK with that. But where does that government no longer have the right to force YOU to pray to Allah five times a day?

I bet it's a border.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because diseases are communicable. And because keeping people healthy benefits everyone. And because it's the morally correct thing to do.

My former roommate was an ER nurse. At one of her jobs, she was the only nurse who spoke Spanish and, as such, treated a lot of the illegal immigrants that came in. She would complain to no end about how these people would come in with some gaping wound and only after treating that wound would she figure out that six other maladies including symptoms consistent with TB. Until she quit the job, she was taking a TB test a least once a month.

The thing is, when people don't have health care, they'll put off going to the doctor until it's unavoidable. Meanwhile, they're walking petrie dishes that interact with the rest of us and help spread disease. And by the time they do come in, their problems are worse and more expensive to fix than they would have been if they'd come in when they first noticed a problem. Sure, we'll attempt to bill them, but it's an almost futile effort. Unless we're ready to accept a health care system where people are denied emergency care unless they've got insurance, there's no way around this. If health care is universal and free, they'll get treated as soon as possible whenever they have something wrong.

Also, even though these people are likely doing menial work, keeping them healthy means they can continue to do that menial labor and we all benefit from that.

Lastly, some of us want to live in a world that's more compassionate than the selfish world that's typically the result of free-market ideals. If I'm fortunate enough to earn a comfortable living and others are not, I want to do my part to help them enjoy a more comfortable life. Not to the extent communism takes things, since that removes the incentive to work hard and try to improve your life, but defining a minimum standard of life to which everyone is entitled is not a bad thing. And I view access to health care as part of that minimum standard of life that I think everyone should have.

Re:What?

[DeadChobi]

There are also governments that will take your money at gunpoint and give it to other people on the condition that you are more productive than they are.

Re:What?

[DeadChobi]

It stops being a compassionate act when we're forced to do it by government.

Re:What?

[Mithyx]

It stops being a compassionate act when we're forced to do it by government.

I disagree

It's not a compassionate act on your part, but it's still a compassionate act by the government.

Re:What?

[MstrFool]

Well said. Fact is, when some one is hurt the first thing EMS responders do is help the person, not check their ID. This card won't change that, or do folks think that we should wait on starting CPR or stopping bleeding until after we find their card and make sure that the government says it's ok to help these people? The law says we help every one, it doesn't say to let them die because they are not supposed to be in this country. With that in mind, the card changes nothing, except make it simpler for folks to keep track of people that may want to complain about having people always looking over their shoulders. Now, change the law so that it says no card and you get no help, then it would make a diff, but until then it is for tracking purposes only. Heck, I'm a white male with roots in the US going way back, and /I/ have a harder time getting health care then the illegal immigrants. This card isn't going to help the US, a country founded on freedom. It will help the folks that think every one needs to be tracked and watched because they may dare to think differently. I can't help but notice that our parents and grandparents lived quite well with out all this extra security and protections. They had planes, bombs, guns, drugs and all that other stuff for a long time and some how we survived. I don't believe that the world has suddenly become so much more of a danger that we need all this crap. Want to live in fear, fine with me. But it's time to wake up and tell folks to stop insisting that every one live in fear. It's the same world you lived in as a child, and your parents lived in all the way back. There have always been risks, there always will be risks. Use that brain a bit and chances are you'll be just fine.

Re:What?

[aronschatz]

When the government forces you to do something against your will, it is not compassion.

There is another point... The government of the USA is by the people. It is not some deity (though, they'd like that). The government cannot be compassionate, period. The people can.

Re:What?

[Timex]

There are also governments that will take your money at gunpoint and give it to other people on the condition that you are more productive than they are.

You mean like the US?

Re:What?

[sqrt(2)]

You say it as if there is something wrong with that. Sorry, you owe your success and productivity to the society that allowed you to come into existence and be successful and productive, and you are going to pay back into that society and to future generations and to the less fortunate. Ideally everyone would do this willingly, but, well there are too many people like you for that to work.

Re:What?

[RunsWithMatches]

Let's not forget the thank the Chinese for their compassion. After all, without their willingness to finance our compassion, Obamacare would not be possible.

Re:What?

[lgw]

I owe my succes and productivity to working harder than I have to, and spending less than I make. If these things are penalized, I will work only the minimum I can get away with, and die as deep in debt as possible. My community benifits from my work and from my honesty. If you try to force me to "pay back" in other ways, you will fail (because I'll just stop working hard and living responsibly if such actions hurt me), and the community will benefit less, not more, from my work.

That's just a fundamental problem. If you want to advocate socialism, you have to provide an answer to this. If you want to maximize my contribution to the community, you are better served by encouraging me to work hard at what I'm good at. Transfer of earnings does nothing to increase total productivity of the community, and often reduces it.

Personally, I think the freedom to keep what one ears is quite valuable, but even if you don't, surely you want everyone to be better off, not everyone to be equally poor?

Re:What?

[lgw]

s/ears/earnings/

What an odd typo.

Re:What?

[sqrt(2)]

I do provide an answer. I can provide dozens of successful nations working as I described, and working well. You'll find them in Europe and Asia (not China, think Japan or South Korea). It's been proven to my satisfaction that the way you describe things working is false in practice, and that collecting taxes and using that to provide a minimum standard of living and safety net (things such as universal health care and education) for the worst off in society is a better way to run things. Moreover, it's the morally superior way to do things, as it recognizes the humanity and dignity of everyone, not just the wealthy or the lucky.

Re:What?

[ArcherB]

I do provide an answer. I can provide dozens of successful nations working as I described, and working well. You'll find them in Europe and Asia (not China, think Japan or South Korea). It's been proven to my satisfaction that the way you describe things working is false in practice, and that collecting taxes and using that to provide a minimum standard of living and safety net (things such as universal health care and education) for the worst off in society is a better way to run things. Moreover, it's the morally superior way to do things, as it recognizes the humanity and dignity of everyone, not just the wealthy or the lucky.

It's not a matter of being successful. Any country that hasn't outright collapsed yet is "successful".

What matters is choice. I can appreciate that you may feel differently. It is your right to disagree. It is also your right to move to any of the countries that feel are better. That's what choice is all about.

See, you have the choice to move to a developed country with gov't provided health care. The US is the only developed, "free" country without gov't provided health care and I and the majority of Americans like it that way. I like my options. Many Americans like having the options that we have.

Unfortunately, instead of you moving to a country that has gov't health care and leaving the system that we like alone, you have to change OUR system, so that we are like everyone else. You currently have the option. You are free to move to wherever you like and we can all be happy. You will have the system you want and we get to keep the system we want. Instead, you are hell bent on taking the option away from me because you feel like you know what is best for me.

Do you know what would be even better? If the states could choose to have gov't run health care or not. That way, a state like Mass could have gov't provided health care and the good people of Alaska wouldn't have to help pay for it. See, there is absolutely no reason why states could not do this on their own. I used Mass as an example because THEY ACTUALLY DID IT!!!! If you wanted gov't run health care, you were free to move to Boston to get it and leave my health care alone! You could pester your local state legislature until they passed a similar provision for your very own state. Hell, you could have even made it better! And it would leave my health care just how I want it, with the choice in my hands. You could have it your way and I could have it mine. Please, tell me what would be wrong with that? Why does there need to be a federal plan that forces it on everyone, want it or not, when there could be state plans for those that want it and none for those that don't. (BTW, the idea came from the 10th Amendment, so I can't really say it's my own. You'll find it in The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution under "Amendment X")

And you really don't know why we are pissed off?

Re:What?

[ArcherB]

You say it as if there is something wrong with that. Sorry, you owe your success and productivity to the society that allowed you to come into existence and be successful and productive, and you are going to pay back into that society and to future generations and to the less fortunate. Ideally everyone would do this willingly, but, well there are too many people like you for that to work.

Yeah, there is something wrong with that. See, unless you are the absolute poorest person in the whole world, there is always someone poorer than yourself. So until you've given all you have to them, you have no right to take my stuff when you still have stuff of your own to give away.

Leave my shit alone you hypocrite!

Re:What?

[Omestes]

Modern Americans are myopic, you forget. We are completely incapable of learning from our past mistakes, or the successes of our neighbors. This is in part because of what I call the American tautology, "America is #1, because we do everything better; we do everything better because America is #1". This line of thought completely blinds us to the fact that there are other countries doing MUCH better than us on every metric currently.

Also we have retroactively read Ayn Rand into our funding documents, so we can justify being as greedy and sociopathic as we want without any of the pesky guilt or empathy. We also decided that social darwinism is valid, for the same reasons.

Sorry for the bitter tone, I've pretty much given up having all hope for America, in a generation or two we will be a 3rd world country, sooner if we adopt libertarianism, or the prevalent hawkish, conservative, theology movement.

Re:What?

[ultranova]

I owe my succes and productivity to working harder than I have to, and spending less than I make.

You owe the fact that "success" amounts to more than a belly full of berries and moss for a bed to the society and the thousands of generations before you who figured out how to make hard work count.

If these things are penalized, I will work only the minimum I can get away with, and die as deep in debt as possible. My community benifits from my work and from my honesty. If you try to force me to "pay back" in other ways, you will fail (because I'll just stop working hard and living responsibly if such actions hurt me), and the community will benefit less, not more, from my work.

Is your tax percent 100 or over? If not, any increase in your income still means you get more, just not as much more as you would without taxation. And at no point in the progressive scale does the tax rate reach 100. In other words, even when you are forced to pay back the community that enables your hard work to bring you success, you're still better off financially working than not.

That you imply that this is not so means that you either aren't succesful enough to warrant learning how progressive taxation actually works, or know and are purposefully spreading misinformation. Either way, your "honesty" is called into question.

That's just a fundamental problem. If you want to advocate socialism, you have to provide an answer to this.

Ironically enough, the original concept of communism was that workers who actually produce stuff should be the ones who get to keep the fruits of their labours. You seem to agree with Marx on that. Why do you hate freedom so much?

Transfer of earnings does nothing to increase total productivity of the community, and often reduces it.

A community is not a corporation. It exists to benefit its members, not to maximize productivity. A society where its poorer members don't have to worry about starvation is preferable to a slightly more productive one where the richest members reap all the benefits of increased production, and the poor ones get the shaft.

Personally, I think the freedom to keep what one ears is quite valuable, but even if you don't, surely you want everyone to be better off, not everyone to be equally poor?

If you can think of a way to guarantee nobody starves and the infrastructure is taken care of without taxes, I'm all ears. It's not like I enjoy paying taxes, just the things they buy me: a civilization. We stopped living in a jungle a million years ago, and I for one don't want to go back.

Re:What?

[Omestes]

See, you have the choice to move to a developed country with gov't provided health care. The US is the only developed, "free" country without gov't provided health care and I and the majority of Americans like it that way. I like my options. Many Americans like having the options that we have.

We still are the only developed, free (I don't understand your quotes, the people in the countries you dislike VOTED for health care, in the same way we tried to) without gov't provided healthcare. We are probably one of the few "free" countries with a gov't mandated revenue stream to insurance companies though. Also, one could say that the American people choose to have actual public health care when we voted for Obama. None of the people on the right seem to notice that a majority of people voted to get rid of their failing philosophies.

Another problem, yes, I agree states should have more power. But there is a limit to the choice one can have. Lets say you live in a backward state like Arizona, where conservative politics has basically destroyed the state economy, the State of Arizona decides to make a whole bunch of new laws that mutiliate the anyone in the population making less than 400,000/year, but thanks to politics killing the economy, and decimating the housing market, you can't afford to move. In your ideology, these people got what they deserve.

I would be a HUGE fan of actual socialized medicine, and if the voters put a proper progressive into office, I would see this as a mandate that people actually wanted it, even if libertarians and tea party folk hated it. Actually, right now, I hardly see a huge margin of people against even Obama's travesty, it generally is around 42 for, 45 against, rarely did I see a poll where the difference was greater than the margin of error. Yes, the opponents are very vocal, but that means nothing. I could turn around your logic and say that they want to impose their views on me, and on people who can't get insurance for whatever reasons.

And you really don't know why we are pissed off?

Because you think your opinion is more valid than someone else's?

Re:What?

[Omestes]

The government cannot be compassionate, period. The people can.

But the government is the people. They should match the character of society. So if we all vote for compassionate candidate, we get a compassionate government as a whole, which represents the compassionate majority of voters.

Remember, we get the government we deserve. Which reflects VERY badly on the American people, and has for time unmemorable.

Re:What?

[lgw]

Marginal tax rates can exceed 100%. It's not just the tax bracket, I lose the ability to take deductions, contribute to an IRA, etc. It's particularly bad for seniors, as Social Security becomes taxable when your income is above some low threshold, and so having a little income can really hurt you.

You owe the fact that "success" amounts to more than a belly full of berries and moss for a bed to the society and the thousands of generations before you who figured out how to make hard work count.

Absolutely true.

A community is not a corporation. It exists to benefit its members, not to maximize productivity. A society where its poorer members don't have to worry about starvation is preferable to a slightly more productive one where the richest members reap all the benefits of increased production, and the poor ones get the shaft.

The above is why total productivity of the community (over time) is so important. 99% of Americans live better than 95% of people who have ever lived. Whether you're "rich" or "poor" in America is a small thing compared to being born into this community that has so valued improvements in technology and productivity.

Whether the "rich get richer" doesn't matter objectively. I prefer a system where the poor get an increasing standard of living, even though the rich keep getting proportionally richer to a system where everyone gets a decreasing standard of living, but those Evil Bastards(TM) get the shaft. It pisses me off when people want to sacrifice everyone's actualy well-being for some personal sense of economic justice.

Sure, my work makes my employer richer, that Evil Bastard(TM), but it also creates a better product for all our customers. Most technological advances work that way - sure, some company earns a bunch of money, those Evil Bastards(TM), but everyone's purchasing power increases, and that makes a huge difference over time, and totaly swamps the difference between rich and poor.

Re:What?

[lgw]

I do provide an answer. I can provide dozens of successful nations working as I described, and working well. You'll find them in Europe and Asia (not China, think Japan or South Korea). It's been proven to my satisfaction that the way you describe things working is false in practice, and that collecting taxes and using that to provide a minimum standard of living and safety net (things such as universal health care and education) for the worst off in society is a better way to run things. Moreover, it's the morally superior way to do things, as it recognizes the humanity and dignity of everyone, not just the wealthy or the lucky.

Sadly, is not usually sustainable. Sure you can give everyone nice things for a while, but those socialist countries without a massive trade surplus have future obligations that simply cannot be met. Even the minimal socialism in the US has produced the same problem. The obvious symptom is growing debt, as we pass the costs of today's programs to future generations, but the far worse problem is growing obligations! Between the free rider problem and the ease with which new programs can be used by unscrupulous politicians to buy votes, the forward liability of most socialst countries can't possibly be met by any reasonable expectation of economic growth.

And the result is what we're seeing in Greece. People are really angry, and legitimately so, at sharply rising taxes and falling wages while the government is reducing social programs, because the bill has finally come due on previous generations' "minimum standard of living and safety net". It seems totally unfair that they have to make these significant sacrifices in standard of living (the take home pay of a policeman has fallen by, what, 1/3 in a year) because of money that other people spent, but that's what it means to fund programs with debt - your grandchildren are really getting screwed!

America's social programs were already unsustainable before this recent explosion in spending, but the problem has just changed from "some distant decade" to "any year now". It's quite scary, and government promises of a "minimum standard of living and safety net" are meaningless once the money runs out (and becuse of the Laffer curve there's little additional revenue potential from increased taxes, no matter how those taxes are packaged).

Re:What?

[couchslug]

That's why it's useful for the useless to take from the productive, and the productive to bribe them not to "kill the golden goose".

People are all competitors, and really, enemies. Those who only see virtue in poverty want my tax money to feed the them and the welfare brats they excrete, while the rich (correctly) see that all is corruption so there is no social obligation but that spelled out in law.

There is no reason not to get all you can and Cthulhu take the hindmost.

Re:What?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Borders and nations are artificial, man-made. They enforce a low-brow, low-IQ "us vs. them"' mentality and thus belong in the dark ages."

So are the walls of your house. If you don't think we should have borders, by the same rationale you should open the doors of your house and let us all in.

Hey, what's in the fridge? Mind if I change the channel?

Re:What?

[icebrain]

I heard a great solution to the "how to pay for those without insurance" problem the other day.

If the person is a US citizen, bill the government. Government pays the bill, then applies the amount to the individual's taxes. The IRS will be quite happy to accept regular payments, with interest of course.

If the person is not a US citizen, but here legally, follow the above.

If the person is here illegally, or was legal but left the country, the US government pays (to ensure the providers are compensated), then the bill is sent to that individual's country. If the country doesn't pay up, the money is withheld, dollar for dollar, from any foreign aid or assistance that was going to be paid.

Of course, and before anyone flips out, this also implies massive changes in the insurance structure--eg,

Any plan offered in a state must be available to everyone in that state, at the same price, terms, and conditions. No pre-existing conditions, either you sign up or you don't. But like plans now, signups are once a year, making it harder to pull the "now I'm sick so I'll get insurance" routine.

Employers can only provide funds towards helping people pay premiums, they can't link to a certain plan ("provider agnostic", if you will)

Providers must set a price for a given procedure, charge everyone the same, and publish the price. No more charging Bill $X, Sue $Y, and Frank $Z, just because their insurance is different.

Providers can't charge for treatment of things they caused. If you get MRSA in the hospital, for example, they can't charge you for treating that.

Tort reform limits malpractice suits to gross negligence only (cutting off the wrong limb, for example). In return, a national review site where patients can rate their care and comment freely is set up; interfering with or attempting to hide/cover up/defraud the system is a Very Bad Crime.

You know, actual fixes to the entire system, rather than band-aids and shell games with the money.

Re:What?

[ArcherB]

Modern Americans are myopic, you forget. We are completely incapable of learning from our past mistakes, or the successes of our neighbors. This is in part because of what I call the American tautology, "America is #1, because we do everything better; we do everything better because America is #1". This line of thought completely blinds us to the fact that there are other countries doing MUCH better than us on every metric currently.

Also we have retroactively read Ayn Rand into our funding documents, so we can justify being as greedy and sociopathic as we want without any of the pesky guilt or empathy. We also decided that social darwinism is valid, for the same reasons.

Sorry for the bitter tone, I've pretty much given up having all hope for America, in a generation or two we will be a 3rd world country, sooner if we adopt libertarianism, or the prevalent hawkish, conservative, theology movement.

Well, since "there are other countries doing MUCH better than us on every metric currently", and you are so much smarter than the rest of us, you are free to move to one of these intellectual Utopias and live among your own, enlightened kind. There is really no point in hanging around with us mental midgets.

Re:What?

[ArcherB]

Also, one could say that the American people choose to have actual public health care when we voted for Obama.

No. The American people voted for "change". Not change from freedom to socialism, but change from R to D, nothing more. If Americans wanted socialized medicine, Scott Brown would not have won a senate seat from one of the most liberal states in the country.

I could turn around your logic and say that they want to impose their views on me, and on people who can't get insurance for whatever reasons.

If there were no other countries that offered socialized medicine, you would have a point. But that's not the case. As a matter of fact, it's the opposite. There are no developed countries that do NOT offer socialized medicine except for the US.
Think of it this way. We are in a seafood restaurant. Every other restaurant is a burger joint. You are in the seafood restaurant with us, but you want a burger. So instead of going to a burger joint and leaving us to our seafood, you and others like you decide to turn the seafood restaurant into a burger joint, just like every other restaurant in town. So now, you get your burger. We all get burger. Even though you could have gotten burger elsewhere, you decided that because you wanted burger, that everyone should have burger no matter what they think they wanted before.

And you really don't know why we are pissed off?

Because you think your opinion is more valid than someone else's?

It's not about my opinion. It's about my decisions. And yes, when that decision concerns me and my family, it IS more valid than everyone else's. I don't pretend to know what is best for you and yours and I would like the same courtesy from you.

Re:What?

[ArcherB]

One other thing I forgot to comment on:

None of the people on the right seem to notice that a majority of people voted to get rid of their failing philosophies.

Conservative philosophies did not fail. For starters, any government that spends more than it makes is not conservative. Bush, and the two years of Republican controlled congress, were not conservative. Conservatives are economic Libertarians with relatively puritan social views.

However, even if Bush was a true conservative, the president does not control the purse strings. Congress controls the purse strings. The few years that Republicans controlled Congress, the economy boomed. It was not until Democrats took control of congress that things went to the crapper where they still are today. The only that has changed since then is Democrats have more control of congress and now the White House as well. Things have only gotten worse.

So, the problem was not a failure of conservative principles that failed, but a failure of American understand of who controls the economy and how government works as a whole.

Re:What?

[polar red]

If you want to advocate socialism, you have to provide an answer to this.

There are problems with capitalism too ...
been to europe lately ? it's called Social_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capitalism

Van Kersbergen identifies social capitalism as the "common kernel" of the European welfare state and situates social capitalism as a "middle way" between socialist collectivism and neo-liberal individualism

Re:What?

[jecblackpepper]

If there were no other countries that offered socialized medicine, you would have a point. But that's not the case. As a matter of fact, it's the opposite. There are no developed countries that do NOT offer socialized medicine except for the US. Think of it this way. We are in a seafood restaurant. Every other restaurant is a burger joint. You are in the seafood restaurant with us, but you want a burger. So instead of going to a burger joint and leaving us to our seafood, you and others like you decide to turn the seafood restaurant into a burger joint, just like every other restaurant in town. So now, you get your burger. We all get burger. Even though you could have gotten burger elsewhere, you decided that because you wanted burger, that everyone should have burger no matter what they think they wanted before.

Or with a slight change in analogy:Every other restaurant has modern cleanliness standards. You are in a restaurant that doesn't clean its kitchen with us, but you want safe food. So instead of going to a clean joint and leaving us to our salmonella infected food, you and others like you decide to clean up the dirty restaurant, just like every other restaurant in town. So now, you get sanitary food. We all get sanitary food. Even though you could have gotten safe food elsewhere, you decided that because you wanted safe food, that everyone should have safe food no matter what they think they wanted before.

A burger and seafood analogy might sound great and suggest that either choice is basically interchangeable. If there were no real difference between the two choices - everyone satisfies their hunger - then it would be a valid analogy. However, when the choice is between 32 million people having or not having health care then it is more like the clean verses dirty restaurant analogy - serious consequences for those who do not have access to health care: that's just not a civilised society. Do you want to eat in the dirty restaurant or get it cleaned up?

Re:What?

[sonicmerlin]

I owe my succes and productivity to working harder than I have to, and spending less than I make. If these things are penalized, I will work only the minimum I can get away with, and die as deep in debt as possible.

So what's stopping you?

Re:What?

[sonicmerlin]

You are one loony loon. Apparently only people who agree with you are true Americans, and those who disagree should leave America so you can have things your way? And you "respect" his "opinion"? Don't make me laugh. You apparently don't understand the concept of a Democracy.

Re:What?

[polar red]

99% of Americans live better than 95% of people who have ever lived.

have you got any sources to back that up ?

I prefer a system where the poor get an increasing standard of living

but do they?

Re:What?

[mdwh2]

Straw man. Nowhere did he say that they should be allowed in. If an illegal immigrant is caught, sure, feel free to deal with them the same way as normal - but that's got nothing to do with ID cards.

The question was about healthcare. I'm in the UK, and yes, I'm fine with the radical notion of not letting someone bleed to death on the streets just because they haven't got the right identification, even if that means treating people who aren't supposed to be there. If they aren't supposed to be there, you can deal with that afterwards - it doesn't mean they deserve to die.

Re:What?

[lgw]

There are many ways to measure this, but a good data point for the "size of the pie" (because we have it historically) is real GDP per capita, which measures the productivity of the average American in inflation-adjusted terms. As we are a net importer this is a good proxy for average non-debt purchasing power, since we consume everyhting we produce, plus some. Trusting Google results here a bit we have Graph. Log Graph. This doesn't establish how mush the poor get richer, but it shows how huge the effect of technology is (to use the term loosely). Every 50 years the average purchasing power increases 10-fold, which is really something.

Historical purchasing power by quintile is hard data to come by, but the census has some http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h01AR.xls>recent data. and you might find more on their site. The bottom quintile is indeed rising slowly. If you control for immigration, and look only at incomes for native-born Americans, the numbers rise faster (and presumably the incomes of immigrants are also much higher than where they left, but how do you measure that?).

Qualitatively, we're simply far better off. A century ago the primary household cost was food. Now there are more overweight than underweight people in the world! Compared to when I was born, we have all sorts of cool gadgets that make life more comfortable, from large TVs to portable music players to computers(!) in the home(!). Cars are vastly safer, and pollute 1/1000th of what they used to, and as a result smog days are a thing of the past. Medicine is vastly improved - most of the medical techniques that people complain of as costly simply didn't exist 40 years ago.

While many people have recently bought more house tan they can afford, today it's typical for each child to have his own bedroom, and we're the first society in history to achieve that (average home size has doubled in the past 50 years). That's a huge improvement for the young. And of course we invented a magic pill that actually works to give a man an erection, which is a darn significant improvement for the old, and something that has been sought for all of mankind's history.

I live in an age of miracles, surrounded by a nation of emo whiners.

Re:What?

[ultranova]

Marginal tax rates can exceed 100%. It's not just the tax bracket, I lose the ability to take deductions, contribute to an IRA, etc. It's particularly bad for seniors, as Social Security becomes taxable when your income is above some low threshold, and so having a little income can really hurt you.

This is why income tax needs to be progressive, with no deductions or additions, so that every extra dollar you earn by whatever means means you're left with more money after taxes. A tax system that has deductions is almost inevitably going to have local optimums with added income leaving you with no more and possibly even less money, benefiting no one but shady accountants.

The above is why total productivity of the community (over time) is so important. 99% of Americans live better than 95% of people who have ever lived. Whether you're "rich" or "poor" in America is a small thing compared to being born into this community that has so valued improvements in technology and productivity.

The same was true of people of Soviet Russia, simply because they had sewers, electricity and running water and the majority of people to have ever lived didn't. Living better than people in the Dark Ages and earlier is not a great claim.

That said, of course productivity of community is important for the quality of the lives of their citizens - making the pie bigger makes everyone's share bigger too. However, if a larger and larger fraction of the pie is given to just a few people, then at some point the shares of others start to shrink, despite the pie still growing.

People need incentive to work hard (or better yet, think hard and then work); but at some point the cost of incentives becomes greater than the increased total productivity. Also, giving more and more incentives to a single person doesn't make him endlessly more productive; at some point you'd be better off taking away some incentive from him and distributing it among others, since their combined increase in production would outweight his loss of productivity.

Finding the sweet spot of optimal economy is not easy, and to make matters worse, people tend to hold positions based on ideology, often oversimplified to the point of absurdity and held with fanatical fervor. Nobody runs their personal finances or corporatations that way (or if they do they're quickly bankrupt), yet when it comes to national economy then suddenly it's a choice between completely unregulated free market with no social services and communism. That's why Soviet Union fell: when there was a difference between reality and theory, reality got ignored. That's why we got the current trouble: right wing deregulated markets, after which business geniuses made computer models, and both trusted their pet theories blindly. And yet the lesson still remains unlearned, and issues get decided on ideological, rather than practical, grounds.

I prefer a system where the poor get an increasing standard of living, even though the rich keep getting proportionally richer to a system where everyone gets a decreasing standard of living, but those Evil Bastards(TM) get the shaft.

The problem is that the poor - or, in fact, anyone below the rich - is not getting an increasing standard of living. The fact that people are getting into more and more debt to maintain the same lifestyle should be a clear indication of this. The rich are getting richer faster than the economy as a whole is growing, and that means that everyone else is getting poorer - not just proportionally but in absolute terms too. That is the problem.

Re:What?

[ChrisMaple]

you owe your success and productivity to the society that allowed you to come into existence and be successful and productive

Any society that would prohibit such actions is evil and those that create and enforce the restrictions should be killed to the last man. The society that allows such actions is DOING NOTHING (that's what allowing is).

and you are going to pay back into that society and to future generations and to the less fortunate.

There is no way to pay back NOTHING. The "less fortunate" are those who have earned nothing, and you are proposing stealing at gunpoint from those who have earned what they have. You, sir, are promoting a system of legalized theft from unarmed victims.

Re:What?

[IndustrialComplex]

You say it as if there is something wrong with that. Sorry, you owe your success and productivity to the society that allowed you to come into existence and be successful and productive, and you are going to pay back into that society and to future generations and to the less fortunate. Ideally everyone would do this willingly, but, well there are too many people like you for that to work.

That's an awful lot of ownership that society is claiming. Are you suggesting that a person born in the United States would not be as productive if they lived in Canada? Or by simple fact of existing, they owe the fruits of their labor to some 'other'?

Re:What?

[ChrisMaple]

surely you want everyone to be better off, not everyone to be equally poor?

Those who want power understand that it is much harder to control those who are well off than those who are poor. So they do want everyone (usually, except themselves and maybe their buddies) to be equally poor.

Most lefties, when pressed, will admit that they'd rather see everyone poor than to have some people rich end everyone else not poor. Even my mother was like that, and she was middle-of-the-road.

Re:What?

[cayenne8]

"You owe the fact that "success" amounts to more than a belly full of berries and moss for a bed to the society and the thousands of generations before you who figured out how to make hard work count."

Yet they made it all the way to these generations, for most of the time, without having to have the government take money out of everyone's pocket to spend on the poor, the lazy, the incompetent, the criminal...etc. I don't have a problem with helping the poor, or the truly infirmed or elderly, but I'd prefer to do it like in the old days through voluntarily giving through charity.

Our social saftey net has become a way of life for too many these days...I prefer to go with something Ben Franklin is attributed: roughly, that we should make it as uncomfortable as possible to be poor...so as to encourage people to work hard to NOT be poor.

Re:What?

[TheFlamingoKing]

"Moreover, it's the morally superior way to do things"

I reject your argument that using threats of violence against individuals to take money from them and give them to others is morally superior to anything, especially a system that provides the same care to individuals without requiring violence in order to maintain it.

The end, a "minimum standard of living and safety net" may be morally superior to the position "no minimum standard of living and safety net", but the means to that end are most certainly not moral. If I need health care, it is not moral to use force to take that money from my neighbor and use it for myself - so I certainly reject the notion that some third-party called "government" or "society" can do that for me.

Re:What?

[sqrt(2)]

Leaving the country is actually NOT an option for me, or most people. If you are wealthy enough for that to be an option, good for you, but you're out of touch to suggest that as a reasonable course of action for anyone who disagrees with how this country currently operates.

Re:What?

[sqrt(2)]

You are born into a kind of "societal debt" to the particular social structure you were born into. Canadians to the Canadian society and government, (which is really just the formalized version of the first), Americans to the US society, and so on. There is also a larger group that all people belong to, humanity, but that group has yet to be united under a single system so your obligations to that group are mostly moral concerns such as treating people with respect, not murdering others, etc.

Re:What?

[Thuktun]

I owe my succes [sic] and productivity to working harder than I have to, and spending less than I make.

Ignoring the entire structure of society around you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are you saying you never used a public school, or were supported by someone who used a public school? Police, fire departments, libraries, roads, traffic signals, fresh water, sewers, national defense? Those kinds of things played no part at all in helping you reach where you are now?

We live in a society and the commons should not be taken for granted so.

Re:What?

[polar red]

I happen to agree with your post, but only partly. those advances you talk about are advances of the past; something went wrong the last decade: and I think it has to do with too few people controlling too much of the wealth.
And I wonder what will happen when we really DO run out of oil; our food supply is 100% dependent on it.

Re:What?

[lgw]

We can't really run out of oil, though it can become more expensive over time. The slightest hint that supply might not meet demand causes a sharp price spike that (with a bit of latency) causes a reduction in demand and an increase in supply (from less economic sources, eventually including oil shale and oil sands). Almost as if some invisible hand reached out and adjusted the economy.

And I wouldn't buy the "too few people controlling too much of the wealth" meme. Compared to the excesses of the industrial revolution? More Americans are stockholders today than are manufacturing workers, farmers, or soldiers. The majority controls the means of production. Marx would be astounded. The problem today IMO is that (ofr the first time ever) a great many people have a little wealth, but have never learned to think financially in the long term, and so do very silly things. That will sort itself out - it's amazing how sophisticated we can become in specific areas when it directly affects the pocketbook. Heck, I'd like to see people stop confusing "wealth", "income", and "possessions" for a start.

Re:What?

[lgw]

Those essential services are less than half of my tax burden. Most of my taxes are a simple transfer of income from me to people who belong to more politically influential groups. Compared to others who had the benefit of exactly the same services, I'm successful and somewhat wealthy compared to their increasing debt due to simple responsibility and willingness to better myself (and nothing heroic or really even impressive on either count). If someone making the same as me spends twice as much, then comes asking for a handout when he can't borrow any more, how could I not be annoyed?

Re:What?

[Wandering Idiot]

I owe my success and productivity to working harder than I have to, and spending less than I make. If these things are penalized, I will work only the minimum I can get away with, and die as deep in debt as possible.

While I can sympathize with this point of view from an idealistic perspective, as a practical matter I have to say you're full of it. We already have a progressive income tax, so why aren't you "working the minimum possible" now, if you consider that being penalized? Unless you're referring to a completely Communist system in which what you earn has no bearing on how much you keep, but who's advocating that? (If you say "Obama", I will smack you. The current Democrats are hard-right compared to actual Communists). If not, I have to ask at what tax rate you would suddenly make the binary switch from "working harder than you have to and saving" to working as little as possible and trying to die deep in debt (and you'd better time your death correctly, or you might have an unpleasant last few years and end up ironically relying on the public assistance that was "penalized" from your fellow citizens).

I'm not saying that tax rates can't affect productivity, just that I'd imagine the affect is more or less a smooth curve distribution, in terms of what individuals find it affects their motivation and to what extent. My guess is for the majority of high earners the marginal rates would have to be far higher than they are now to have a significant affect, given that the highest brackets were over 80% throughout the 40's and 50's, and we still had millionaires then (not to mention those years included some of the best, economically, for the US). I believe we're currently at about 36%, going to 39% once some of the current tax cuts expire, which is still fairly low by historical standards.

Re:What?

[polar red]

We can't really run out of oil, though it can become more expensive over time. The slightest hint that supply might not meet demand causes a sharp price spike that (with a bit of latency) causes a reduction in demand and an increase in supply (from less economic sources, eventually including oil shale and oil sands). Almost as if some invisible hand reached out and adjusted the economy.

you are kidding right ? there is a finite amount of oil in the ground, so we WILL run out, even if we can pump every last drop.

Re:What?

[polar red]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
watch this very carefully. this is a SCIENTIST, not an economist.

Re:What?

[lgw]

Demand is not fixed. This is not a complicated concept. We won't ever run out, we'll simply reach the point where other approaches are cheaper - for power, for fertilizer, for lubrication, etc, than crude oil pumped from the ground. We only use oil because it's cheaper than the alternative.

The amout of oil available at $40/bbl+ production cost (oil sands, etc) is vast - enough for technology to catch and provide a cheaper way of powering cars. Oil has never been significant for electrical power generation, and it just won't take that long until some form of stored electric power is viable for more than short commutes.

This "peak oil" scam is vapid.

Re:What?

[lgw]

The problem is that the poor - or, in fact, anyone below the rich - is not getting an increasing standard of living. The fact that people are getting into more and more debt to maintain the same lifestyle should be a clear indication of this. The rich are getting richer faster than the economy as a whole is growing, and that means that everyone else is getting poorer - not just proportionally but in absolute terms too. That is the problem

Ahh, proof by repeated assertion? Take a look at this data, from the census guys http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h01AR.xls

Things have been flat for everyone since 2001, as our debt has come home to roost. But that's pretty short term in the scheme of things, and isn't actually a reduction for any income group. Longer term, purchasing power has increased exponentially from 1800-2000, roughly a 10-fold increase every 50 years. Hooray for technology!

This idea that we have it worse than the previous generation is an urban legend that has been repeated every generation since America began, but except during the 30s and the Civil War, it simply hasn't been true. Of couse, we seem determined to wrack the ship of state upon the reefs, and if we don't repeal recent spending initiatives things may very well get ugly, but thus far it just hasn't happened. I have hope that, thanks to recent personal fincance lessons learned painfully by many, we may even get a party that stands for fiscal responsibility again - hey, it could happen!

Re:What?

[polar red]

This "peak oil" scam is vapid.

only if we can change fast enough from oil to something else. And I don't think we can. 'inelasticity' of demand comes to mind; and cost/construction_time/write-off_time of a car/tractor/fertilizerproductionfacility/... we need 20 years to wean society from oil(in a painless way that is), that means we have to start before oil production starts to go down. But talk to the man in the street and you know there won't be a painless transition, because he can't even think/plan five years ahead, let alone him voting for people that plan/think 5 years ahead (of which there aren't any in politics).

Re:What?

[lgw]

There's a point at which it's not worth working harder, and that point seems to be (for me anyhow) when the marginal tax rate passes 50%. I've put great effort over my career into not settling into my comfort zone, to always push to learn more and be more productive - but as of now it seems that "here is good". If things get much worse tax-wise over the next decade, I'll just retire early and live modestly.

I've been re-arranging my finances to avoid paying any capital gains for at least a decade as well, though that means making poorer investment choices (in return for higher take-home returns - but still crappier companies are getting my investment dollars). What really bothers me is the prospect of the government seizing my 401K assets (as has happened elsewhere). The idea that "only the rich own stocks" seems to dominate the Democratic party right now, despite the fact that a majority of Americans do. So far the chance of that seems low enough that I'm not hedging against it. Neverthless, thanks to the Laffer curve that government has nearly maxed out possible income tax revenue, and current debt levels are unsustainable, so we'll have to do something. Unless we get some new party that puts fiscal responsibilty first, something has to give. I'm still betting on a 15% VAT instead of an outright seizure of assets, but at this point it wouldn't surpise me.

Fortunately that "party of fiscal responsibility" thing is looking very atteractive to a great many people, perhaps even 51%?

Re:What?

[lgw]

Sure, but prices will go up long before the oil becomes tight. Oil companies are good at making a profit, and good at knowing what's under the ground. There's an entire field of engineering devoted to this, with many thousands of trained engineers who spend their entire career assesing the location and difficulty of oil reserves. BP is famous for buying 25 and 50 year leases on the rights to oil under patches of seafloor that no existing technology could possibly drill. Oil companies are halfway decent at planning 20 years ahead, or at least the leading ones are.

More importantly, there are many decades of consumption worth of oil available in "oil sands" - it's just that the price of extraction is high compared to tradional oil prices. If oil prices stay above $50/bbl, however, it's all economically viable.

And people adjust pretty quickly to day-to-day prices. Hybrid vehicles emerged almost instantly (relative to the lifcycle of a car design) when gas prices last spiked, and adoption was rapid. Eventually someone will invent a battery (or hydrogen storage system, or something) that lets you charge your car from the wall and drive it for a week, and the shift to those cars will be equally fast. The vast payoff for inventing that approach is well understood by the many companies working on it.

Yep, they should have.

[gbutler69]

It would've been better for them if they could have done so. They failed to do so, so they lost. If we fail to do so, we lose.

Rights do too exist

[mariox19]

Rights are an aspect of reality and apply to individuals.

If you lived as an isolated individual, you would have to build shelter, make tools, hunt and gather for food. No other person would be there to stop you. You would be free to preserve your life and well-being; you would be free to take the actions you saw fit to take; you would be free to keep the shelter, tools, and food that you produced. The only thing you would have to worry about would be animals, and the vagaries of nature.

When people choose to live together, they can recognize what it means to live as a human being, and apply that to a social setting. The rights to life, liberty, and property are the recognition of the life of a human individual in society with other human individuals.

People could live in close proximity, and wantonly steal or kill one another, but that's not society. That's living like animals.

Society cannot invent rights, only recognize them; government cannot grant rights, only protect them. Rights exist apart from society and government, and their existence is definite and specific.

If the social mores of a group of people reflect something other than life, liberty, and property -- so much the worse for them. What they're perpetuating has nothing to do with rights. Moreover, what they're perpetuating is something less than a human society.

Re:Rights do too exist

[TapeCutter]

"The only thing you would have to worry about would be animals, and the vagaries of nature."

That's correct you would only be subject to the law of the jungle; "eat and be eaten". Rights have no meaning for a "lone wolf" they only have meaning in the context of a society (human or otherwise) they are all about how members of that society are expected to behave toward each other. Therefore the society must determine what those rights are via evolutionary pressure or abstract thought.

Re:Rights do too exist

[mariox19]

I'm not sure what you mean by evolutionary pressure. However, living by the law of the jungle is not living in a human society, a point to which I think you would agree. For the lone individual, the concept of rights is moot. Once individuals decide to associate, then through a process of abstract thought, as you say, people need to discern how life lived as a human being applies to a social context.

This is individualist reasoning, admittedly. But the point is that human beings exist as individuals in society with one another: in other words, the individual is the primary fact of existence. There is no society apart from the individuals in it. (I often write it "Society" when I'm referring to the opposite conception -- quotation marks and spooky italics.) "Society" is not the primary fact of existence; moreover, "Society" cannot re-write the facts of existence. Rights are not arbitrary.

Re:Rights do too exist

[mariox19]

You're arguing for moral relativism, which is no way of arguing. Moral relativism means that there is no right or wrong.

Taking the individual as the default state is an exercise in conceptual isolation, the same way positing something like inertia is. You don't ever see inertia, or any of the other laws of the physical world in isolation.

Logically, you take the individual as that primary because that is what lives or dies. As such, the actions one should take to ensure one's survival are not arbitrary. The reasoning that I subscribe to, as I wrote earlier, applies this objective standard to a social setting.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[kismet666]

LMAO, go read the Newsweek poll, not one of the right-wing biasted polls. The majority of the people do support what's in the bill and they support they bill when they understand its provisions.

Fait Accompli

[sjbe]

We live in the present. The sons/daughters are not responsible for the sins of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfathers/mothers.

Great. Then by your logic we can stop complaining about illegal immigrants because they have effectively invaded and assimilated. It's a done deal. You aren't going to kick 10 million out that are already here and working.

Meh

[PPH]

I work for a foreign corporation. They don't care whether or not I have a SSN (I'm an LLC as far as the US gov't is concerned). If I didn't have the magic ID card, they wouldn't give a damn. I do the work, they pay me. Staying out of US tax court is my problem, not theirs.

I'm starting to see more people in my profession (engineering) working for overseas bosses because of the onerous tax and other regulations placed on contractors in this country. I'm sure more will follow.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[jeff4747]

I recommend keeping up with polling. Now that it's passed, Gallup has support for the bill at 49%, 40% opposed.

What you're missing is a large chunk of those opposed to the bill were opposed because it didn't go far enough. They wanted something like single-payer.

I'd say just tear up the Constitution now

[argStyopa]

...but Congress and the President currently are using it for toilet paper.

Dirty Rotten Republicans!

[kenh]

I can't believe those intrusive, brain-dead republicans, led by Karl Rove and his minions want to roll out a national ID card, just another intrusion into our privacy, things will be so different when Obama gets in office, that's for sure!

Wait, what?

Oh crap... Never mind.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Cwix]

Your full of shit, more Americans want the bill then don't. Also 79% of democrats support this bill. In fact more republicans (14%) support the bill then democrats (9%) who dont support the bill. http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

Your full of shit, according to the news Ive read today 10 states are considering suing. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html

Please take your blatant falsehoods and go away.

Re:How do Republicans support this?

[Cwix]

I believe he was implying that the rhetoric coming from some tea party participants might lead to them shooting, not that they have already done so. Note the "ready to shoot" its not already shooting.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[StrategicIrony]

Yeah, I was thinking a national health system akin to Canada or Norway or Sweden or Finland or Denmark (all of whom rank higher in both median income and 'quality of living' in every single world economic survey than the US).

But, you have to remember that the only reason we DONT ALREADY HAVE (as a successor to the Patriot Act) a national ID card was resistance from the liberal democrats.

Now, I would think it might pass.... But I have a feeling the republicans are too busy trying to stick their thumb in Obama's eye to actually care about what the content of the bills are anymore. :-)

RFID Tag

[gibson123]

Well, as long as they don't go slipping in a RFID tag in the card....

Reality Check

[mpapet]

we need a DNA database too
Already happening to those dastardly criminals in our luxurious jails.

hey we need to start monitoring your internet usage
Already happening. NSA/AT&T whistleblower ring a bell? It turns out they are just one telco of many that got the same request. The others were compliant too.

There are thousands of bits of data about you being collected for sale by law-abiding private companies. There's no law that says the government can't use the services of the data provider.

Seriously, they GOT your number. The horse left the barn on this one at least a decade ago.

The only thing this card will do is make an identifications system contractor a bit richer and my wallet slightly fatter.

'fraud proof' - yeah right

[jdogalt]

I stopped reading at 'fraud proof'. If it's gonna happen, it'll happen. But 'fraud proof' is a joke.

-SonicDawg

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Cool!!!

[NetNed]

Most federal programs run SO smooth its no wonder that they would like to take some of the burden off the states as to give us all the sense of safety a national ID would give you and to have it all at the federal level? Bonus!


Nice to see we have many on here ready to curl up in a ball and take whatever beatings the federal government hands out like they were back in high school taking beatings from a bully. Acceptance of your new evil overloads indeed.

Healthcare used to be cheap. Believe it or NOT!

[Paleolibertarian]

Not knowing the average age of posters I'm willing to bet it's somewhere around 30. Well I'm almost 60 and I can tell you that health care used to be cheap. A doctor's visit was $8 and insurance cost me around $30/month but most people didn't need it because we were more fit back then.

So what happened? In one word I'll tell you. Government!

First the government mandated that employers provide insurance to their employees. The insurance companies loved this since it brought them more customers. The side effect however was that having insurance meant that instead of simply putting a band-aid on it people went to the doctor or the emergency room and the insurance company got billed. Higher demand and assurance of payment meant that doctors and hospitals could raise fees. Higher costs forced up insurance rates. Unfortunately the higher costs put more burden on people with fixed incomes and the poor. And lets not forget the unions hand in all of this.

So government created Medicare and Medicaid.

This was fucking great for the doctors, hospitals and even the insurance companies. Doctors and hospitals could charge more for their services and the insurance companies could raise their rates. More money running through the insurance companies means more cash flow, always a good thing.

Meanwhile people began to believe that medical care was a right and not something you had to pay for. The disconnecting of the cost-benefit ratio was removed from the consumer and thrust into the hands of Insurance companies and faceless bureaucrats.

Things went along like that with ever increasing costs and more demands for government to do something. So in order to get elected the knotheads in congress made more poorly thought-out laws. They kept getting elected by knothead voters. And so it goes.

So now, not only is medical care extremely expensive but the government will now force everyone to buy insurance even if they are young and strong and don't need it.

And the costs WILL go up.

Cost cutting won't work and will result in less quality and less availability. Even more of the costs will be taken up by paper(computer)work. I do consulting for a large medical clinic and about 1/3 or more of the staff have nothing to do with providing health care. Their jobs are exclusively doing the work necessary to bill the insurance companies or the government for payment. The billing costs so much that people with no insurance at all get a greatly reduced rate for care.

So everybody, despite all of the assurances from the news parrots and government lackeys, costs WILL go up and taxes WILL go up to pay for it. Either taxes will go up or the debt will go up. My guess is both will go up. Increases in taxes and debt are unsustainable and eventually lenders will stop lending and taxpayers won't be able to pay.

I hear the economy in Argentina is improving.

Re:Healthcare used to be cheap. Believe it or NOT!

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations.
I am able to remember when one was able to go to a doctor, pay a reasonable fee, and get actual attention, diagnosis, and a good path to follow to deal with the issue at hand. However, as this fairly well written article from Slate points out, in the late 70s and early 80s, this started to change rapidly:
http://www.slate.com/id/2161736/
However, alas, the problem was not Medicare/Medicaid and government intervention. Rather, it was a combination of the health care industry getting all these cool, new toys to play with, and their desire to use them, in spite of the minimal benefits and huge costs; and...the fact that the insurance companies started evolving away from being non-profit to for-profit. it has been my observation that any time a company goes public, and "for profit", their focus immediately shifts away from the concept of providing a well-done service or excellent product, towards cheapening their output to the lowest quality that will keep it being purchased by the consumers, and, raising their pricing as high as they possibly can, all in a search to produce quarterly profits that grow by some mythical expectation created out of the pipe dreams of economists and stock brokers running the Wall Street Money Machine.
I completely agree, though, with your point about the huge amount of paperwork that all this has generated, and, the painfully large extra costs that it imposes directly on the health care provider, and, by extension the patients. It is outrageous that the amount of paperwork has grown to the point that it requires more that 1/10 the total staff of a facility to keep track of it, and, that increasing expense is part of the terrible cost of health care in America.
Now...while you have done such a good job of pointing out some of the elephants crushing the chances of the average American from getting affordable health care, my question is this: What would you propose to do to FIX the problem? If you "do consulting for a large medical clinic", then, you have a perfect seat to observe the places where expenses, inefficiencies and artificial pumps to costs happen, so it would seem to me that you MUST have an idea as to how to correct the problem.
One thing that worries me a bit, though is your comment about how "the government will now force everyone to buy insurance even if they are young and strong and don't need it". Perhaps my understanding of the concept of a shared-risk insurance pool is faulty. My understanding is that a company sells insurance to a group of people...say...just for argument's sake, consisting of 1000 folks (and this assumes both a non-profit organization and and "ideal" company). The company collects a premium on a regular basis from each of the members of the group. It then takes that money and invests it in OTHER enterprises, to help the available pool of cash grow. The insurance company is betting that, out of those 1000 people that some number...say...200, will pay in premiums their entire life, and NEVER make a claim; Also that some small number, say, 100, will have a catastrophic problem that will drain every penny they have put in, and, then some; Finally, that the remainder, about 700, will have some health issues that will require payment out, but, that the net amount that this large pool pulls out will be rather less than the amount they pay into the fund in premiums, plus the profits earned by the company's investments.
Even a non-profit wants to minimize the chance that their numbers are flaky, and, 900 of the pool will have a catastrophic illness, and only 100 will never pull anything out. That is why, from day one, the insurance companies have been fanatical about gathering statistics on health issues with

Re:Healthcare used to be cheap. Believe it or NOT!

[Paleolibertarian]

Thank you for the well written response.

My problem is NOT with any person or corporation (although my belief that corporations having a special status via government charter is inherently evil) making a profit.

My problem is with the government controlling things via mandated coverage, mandated prescription drug coverage and every other government regulation which seeks to disconnect the price/benefit market mechanism between the consumer and the provider.

When the consumer no longer has to pay directly out of his pocket for care when it is delivered, he tends to not care as much about what the care costs because the insurance or the government will pay for it.

With insurance being mandated the consumer doesn't have a choice whether he gets the insurance or not so he tends to demand the best care his insurance will pay for. Doctors are more than happy to provide the most expensive treatments whether they are of any great benefit or not. There are lots of procedures and expensive tests which are of little benefit and may actually cause more harm. Doctors aren't perfect and they want to cover their behinds in case of the all to common malpractice lawsuits.

And I haven't even scratched the surface of the rapacious prices for drugs from Big Pharma.

The FDA bears a large part of the blame for high medical costs.

My main point is simply that government intervention has the unintended consequence of driving up costs.

As to what my recommendations are for fixing the problem if you haven't already guessed it, deregulate the medical industry and abolish the FDA completely. Remove the corporate shield that makes it impossible to sue the actual people who own the large corporations for malpractice and their callous disregard for thew welfare of their customers (patients).

Non-profit's are great and we should have more of them. we used to have lots of them but then government intervention has reduced the number and effectiveness of non-profits across the board.

I would like suggest to anyone that they read this book; More Harm Than Good by Alan Zelicoff and Michael Bellomo.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Harm-Than-Good-Treatments/dp/0814400272/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269465093&sr=8-1

it's not really that simple

[sweatyboatman]

except it turns out your wife/roommate asked them to come into your home to do some work that no one who lived there was willing to do.

your problem isn't with the "intruder", it's with the person who asked the "intruder" into your home without telling you first.

most of the people who come to this country aren't coming here because they love sleeping 12-to-a-bed, getting exploited by their employers, and living under constant threat of deportation.

they come here because American companies come to their towns and offer them jobs and wages that they cannot get in their own country.

if you had any decency or understanding you'd be threatening to shoot the american owners and operators of the businesses that are taking advantage of these desperate people.

Folks, what they're describing...

[JeffTL]

...is a Passport Card -- basically a secure national ID issued by the Department of State ($45 new, $35 renew for non-passport holders, $20 for passport holders, lasts 10 years). Over a million Americans, including myself, carry one -- that's more than the population of the Omaha metro area. It's for car, train, bus, and boat travel within North America, but can also be used as a single identification for getting a job (along with, if I recall, the standard ICAO-compliant passport and the green card), and is recognized by the TSA (for domestic air travel), liquor store, and just about anyone else who needs ID. The RFID chip just has a database pointer, which differs from the card number if memory serves, but it comes with a tin foil hat just in case.

What this idea amounts to is transferring or cloning the passport card program into Social Security or Homeland Security.

Re:Folks, what they're describing...

[NetNed]

So how is that different then what states are already offering? Other then conglomerating in all in to one, which I would think would give you one point of failure if something goes wrong with the system/ID/RFID etc. etc., how is it really different? I'm not really pressed for space in my wallet that much. So it boils down to a system that has been shown time and time again to not really protect anyone any more then what is in place already, will cost more, is a common point of failure if something happens and would be run by the feds instead of the state. The state is mismanaged enough, forget having to deal with a far distant and far less caring (if possible) federal government. I think I'll pass on that.

Re:Folks, what they're describing...

[Dr. Eggman]

$45 new? Mine cost $100 ($75 for the passport, $25 Execution fee) see for yourself.

Re:Folks, what they're describing...

[JeffTL]

That's the fee for a new, full passport. Passport card alongside the book is just $20.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Cwix]

Another 4 have decided to sue, so its 14. Still much less then 38. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/23/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Paleolibertarian]

And we should take the word of a person with as bad grammar and spelling skills as you have?

Re:How do Republicans support this?

[lgw]

The entire point of the Tea Party movement is that they don't support the Republican party as-is. If they did, we wouldn't need a special name for them. The Tea Party wants fiscal responsibilty through lower spending (TEA = Taxed Enough Already). The Republican party used to be the party that supported that ideal. The Tea Party activists may take over the Republican party and return it to those roots, because that seems more likely to succeed than taking over the Democratic party, and we have a two-party system.

Less intrusive government is a likely byproduct of a government with less money to spend, but isn't the primary focus of the Tea party activists.

Too late...

[JediLow]

Umm... its already too late, we have a national ID already on the books - Real ID

What's happened with it? Almost all of the states have fought against it, and it's been stuck in a implementation black hole.

Who's Glen Beck

[Cajun Hell]

He's a guy who works for The Daily Show.

National ID helps citizens, not government

[goodmanj]

Here's a short list of authentication problems which we rely on government-issued ID to solve:

Immigration
Tax recordkeeping
Driver's licensing
Alcohol/tobacco age verification
Workplace security
Credit cards
Banking security
Airline security
Criminal recordkeeping
Terror watchlists
Government benefits (unemployment assistance, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc)

If the concern is that a national ID will allow the government to monitor me, it's far, far too late for that. Government already has access to all this information. Before 9/11, all it took to get full access was a judge's okay: now even that roadblock is gone.

The "jackbooted thugs" already have full access, and gain nothing from a national ID: the only people it helps are citizens, businesses, and non-jackbooted government agencies.

I am currently carrying at least a dozen different objects whose sole purpose is to tell someone who I am, ranging from my driver's license to my supermarket customer loyalty card. The businesses and government agencies I deal with spend billions, probably trillions, each year dealing with authentication and identity problems.

The government has a unique ability to be a final trusted arbiter for authentication. A National ID card doesn't have to be a terrifying dossier containing everything everyone knows about you -- name, fingerprints, political party, criminal record, shopping habits -- all it has to do is verify your identity to anyone who asks.

"Is the person standing in front of me actually John Smith?" Yes or no.

Any info *about* me, ranging from my date of birth to how many cans of Diet Coke I buy a week, should be kept on a company or government agency's own servers. The national ID would provide identity verification of everyone to anyone, and nothing else.

As for how to implement it, let's put it this way. Every day, I and hundreds of thousands of other people use a more secure authentication system to get access to the World of Warcraft than is used to buy a handgun or drive a two-ton vehicle at lethal speeds on the highway. Two-factor authentication isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than our current system of forgeable cards and

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[lkeagle]

Actually, I have no problem paying your medical bills.

I'm sorry you have a problem paying mine...

Big Deal...

[Puppet Master]

We already have one. It's called a Social Security Card...

Social Security is nothing more than a contract between you and the government to pay your taxes.

When being anonymous is outlawed

[quickgold192]

only outlaws are anonymous.

Summary Trolling

[careysub]

It looks like very few, if any, people here have picked up on the trollish sleight-of-hand by the summary submitter. The referenced article does not tie the national ID card to the Health Care Reform bill in any way, and indeed, the ID card proposal is unrelated to it. This is clearly a bit of red-meat baiting.

The ID card proposal is co-sponsored by a Republican (notable in their complete absence of support for HCR) and a Democrat and addresses an issue that is dear to the entire right wing, Tea Party "enthusiasts" as well: suppressing illegal immigration.

False dilemma

[mahsah]

"Either you will have taxpayer funded police officers providing protection, or you will have no protection at all."

What if I protect it myself? What if I have a neighborhood watch? What if I hire a private security company?

Re:False dilemma

[DavidShor]

Right, that's my point. There exists a "free-market" version of security, it exists in many third world countries.

.

But most people don't want that. Transaction costs and distributional issues make it inefficient, pointless, and cruel. I'm arguing that basically, universal health-care can be in the same category.

Re:How do Republicans support this?

[LanMan04]

But would you be surprised? I sure as hell wouldn't....

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Cwix]

I provided sources, quit using strawmen. If you cant refute my evidence, my sources, then your just making noise.

Not in Canada it won't

[Chirs]

It's pretty hard to print holograms with photoshop.

Humans as Numbers

[manlygeek]

There seem to be quite a few comments here that say basically "What's wrong with being positively ID'd?) That's not actually the real problem. The problem is reducing a person to a number. Regardless of what is "promised", as soon a a person can be identified with a number, everything about that person will be accumulated under that number, including how many calories you eat in a day, how many miles you drive and what kind of vehicle is used, what you write, how many times you breath, whether or not you have an STD, and how many times you bought cold medicine that just happens to contains psuedophedrine, etc. Is this really the business of Big Brother? And when you want to speak against the excesses of Big Brother, do you even begin to understand how difficult that will be without some modicum of anonymity?!?! You are dangerously naive if you think this is a good idea. I am a human, I am NOT a number, derived or randomly assigned. As I have said previously, this is quickly becoming an Imperial State where our inalienable rights are being alienated at a frightening pace.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Kymermosst]

And if you're confused as to how treating illegal immigrants will fail to bankrupt us, it's the same as with poor people: They already are receiving treatment, but at the ER, not at a regular doctor.

Yep, and they should be fined for each time they go to the emergency room for an obviously non-life-threatening situation.

There are people out there that insist on going to see a doctor basically every time they sneeze. Constant overuse of the emergency room should have consequences.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Kymermosst]

I meant *everyone* who goes to the ER with obviously non life-threatening situations, including insured people, uninsured people, rich people, poor people, legal residents, illegal residents, etc.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Chris Burke]

Because the hospital was going to eat the cost of their care anyways, the hospital found it was cheaper to manage the indigients' care through preventative medicine than to deal with them in the vastly more expensive ER setting.

Wow that's pretty awesome. Linky maybe? My google foo wasn't strong enough to find it (in the ten seconds I tried).

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Chris Burke]

Right, because ER treatment is so cheap and cost effective.

That's the point. We were paying for people to receive the most expensive and least effective kind of health care, because we didn't want to pay for them to receive cheaper and more effective care, or even more cheap and more effective preventative care. Which means that until yesterday, we were self-defeating morons.

Won't someone think of all the damage reducing the number of sick days taken will do to our economy!?

Good point. Sick days = less work done per employee = more employees need to be hired. It's job stimulus!

I think there's a flaw in that reasoning somewhere, but damned if I can find it. =D

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Totenglocke]

I said 38 were planning about suing, not that they had officially made a decision yet. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Totenglocke]

The majority of people don't support the bill. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/bloomberg-poll-shows-majority-opposition-to-obamacare/ - the key sentences in there are "and like almost every poll taken in the last several months, a majority of respondents opposed it. Moreover, a majority also consider it a government takeover of the American health-care system". Also, if people support the bill, then how come the approval ratings for Democrats are in the dumps? Pelosi has an approval rating of 11% and Reid has an approval rating of 8%. Yup, that shows that the people really support them!

Here's the original Bloomberg article http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag and it says that only about 40% of people support it. Now I don't have a PhD in Statistics, but I'm pretty sure that 40% isn't the same as "the majority of people support it".

Being against Obamacare has nothing to do with being "right-wing" or "left-wing", it has to do with personal responsibility, following the Constitution, and not wanting to fuck the economy .

As for you comment of "The majority of the people do support what's in the bill and they support they bill when they understand its provisions", that's quite amusing since I was just reading an article on CNN about people who did support Obamacare who are now furious over some of it's provisions, such as a 10% tax on going to a tanning salon, which is estimated to cause about 9,000 jobs to be lost due to cut labor or tanning shops closing due to their customers not being willing to pay the extra money.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Totenglocke]

I recommend you keep up with polling, Bloomberg did a poll yesterday (the day you posted) and found that only 40% of people support it. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Totenglocke]

Latest Bloomberg survey about Obamacare support lists only 40% as supporting it. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag

38 states have pass / are in the process of passing / are talking about enacting laws to sue over the unconstitutionality of the law. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_states

I'm sorry, did it hurt when I bitchslapped you right there?

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[jeff4747]

I recommend remedial reading classes.

From the article you linked:
"The poll of 1,002 adults was conducted March 19-22 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent. There was no meaningful movement of opinion the final night of interviewing, after the vote was taken."

So....you are saying that a poll that was mostly taken before the vote, and would not have a statistically significant number polled after the vote, is a better measure of post-vote public opinion than a poll taken entirely after the vote.

No wonder you guys are getting your asses kicked.

Rich?

[Gonoff]

I don't know what the definiton of poverty is here, far less in your country but in my opinion it should be under about £10k/$20k. Then there is the not well off which I arbiarily define as less than £25k/$50k for a childless couple and any household that gets more than twice that may not be members of nice country clubs but they are far from poor!
PS - my wife and I both work and so we fall into this last category.

I may not like paying tax, but it is better I do and some who cannot afford decent shoes - far less that nice new 3DTV or foreign holiday, should pay less.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Cwix]

Yes, your right I missed that. Hmm, how about this, its a moot point. When I was 10 I planned on going to the moon, it never happened. Just cause there is legislation on the floor in 38 states, does not mean it will ever come close to passing in 38 states. You only need one crackpot to introduce legislation.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Cwix]

Poll respondents also agree that the U.S. health-care system needs improvement. Only 20 percent of those surveyed say the system is fine the way it is. Nonetheless, almost half of respondents said action could wait.

So 80% of people think healthcare has issues. And more then half feels something needs to be done about it now.

Of those surveyed, about half say the cost of doing nothing on health care will be greater than the price tag for the legislative overhaul.

About 50% of Americans say doing nothing is worse Your entire premise rests on this one statement

Yet six of 10 also say individuals should be responsible for making sure their health-care needs are met.

Which is also in the same paragraph as this quote

While more than six of 10 respondents agree the government should play a role in ensuring Americans have health care, 53 percent say the plan amounts to a government-run system.

SO in conclusion, Did it hurt when I bitch slapped you? You complained about my reading comprehension in one of your earlier posts. I now find it necessary to call into question your reading comprehension, as you missed a good deal of that article. Either you missed entire paragraphs, or you intentionally cherry picked your numbers. I think you intentionally cherry picked your numbers. Glenn Beck called, he wanted to tell you dinner is on the stove so hurry home.

Re:Still think Obamacare is a good idea?

[Cwix]

I wanted to rewrite one of my sentences. The sentence that starts "About 50%... " should read:

"About 50% of Americans say doing nothing is worse. Your entire premise rests on this next statement:" Mea culpa

Yeah, it is.

[gbutler69]

I used to be naive enough to think I should care about other people. Now I realize that is fruitless. While you're busy caring about other people, those same other people will stick a shiv in your back. Choose a side. Fight for it. That's the way it is.

WTF?

[gbutler69]

No, Marginal Tax Rates CANNOT and DO NOT exceed anything more than like 38%. You are a dishonest liar!