There was a lot of support for a single-payer system within the Democrats. The problem is that there was no support within the Republican party, and they were able to scare the Democrats into dropping the issue with the threat of calling them Socialists and comparing them to Stalin and such. Of course they continue to do that anyway, so basically the Democrats are just pussies that refuse to stand up for anything and actually fight for it. Hell, the speech the other day is the only time I've heard Obama sound even remotely passionate about anything. Unfortunately he was being passionate about giving in to the demands of the Republicans even when the Democrats had the high moral ground. If you can't win in that situation, you just aren't going to win, period. It's a little bizarre to have a Democratic Congress and President essentially carrying out the Republican agenda, but here we are...
So, essentially, we're screwed even if one of the two parties actually has a good idea because they care more about politics than doing what they believe needs to be done.
And, that's why I'm clueless as to why people so passionately support either party. It's not like they actually believe enough in what they say to do anything about it... even when they have all the votes they need.
They're both power hungry hypocrites...
I'm clueless about that too. I'm an independent. I'm suspicious of both sides because we have a political system that is funded by special interests, and an election system that is rigged to try to make it as difficult as possible for anyone who is not a member of one of the two major parties to even get on the ballot, let alone get elected. It's a system that does everything possible to preserve the status quo, and ensures that the status quo is controlled by those with the money to fund the campaigns.
It's not a tax it's a penalty, it has only been called a tax since the question of constitutionality for a penalty was raised.
What it's called has no bearing on how it's implemented. If it's implemented as a tax, then it's a tax.
The law in question does not benefit insurance companies more than anyone else, in fact for any length of time longer than about 3 months (less in most cases) does it become cost effective for an individual to purchase health insurance not offered through an employer or similar program. In other words under this law the most cost effective way to handle health insurance is to only purchase it when you're costing the insurance companies more than you pay them. I believe the reason Kucinich changed his mind and voted for this is that it was explained to him that it would result in the destruction of the health insurance companies.
Right, it will result in the destruction of insurance companies. That must be why they got on board with it and supported the passage of the bill! It all makes sense now! Really, you need to explain yourself a bit here I think. The insurance industry got almost everything they asked for in the bill. I agree that the taxes may be set too low, but they are also going to become tied to the CPI after 2016, and aren't even implemented until 2014. I don't think the insurance companies are going to be hurt by this, especially with all the gouging they're doing right now. They apparently didn't think so either. There's plenty of time to tweak the rates, and I'm sure those won't be the only adjustments made to the law.
Once this law is repealed in full, we can finally start talking about health care reform for the first time. And no, this law was not better than what we had before it.
I guess you must have missed all the other times we've talked about it over the past several decades. This is all new to you. Hell, Eisenhower was trying to get universal health care established back in the fifties. Hell, this plan is essentially just an implementation of the Republican plan from the 90s.
Well, the democrats expressly didn't want to call it a tax, though, because they didn't want to be seen as increasing taxes. So, due to the semantics and mechanisms that trigger the payment, it is essentially a fine. That's the entire basis that enabled the judge to rule as he did. If they'd called it a tax, forced everyone to pay it, but give you a credit if you had insurance, it would have passed the test. But, political posturing stopped that from happening.
And, we ended up with a system that benefits the insurances companies, period. No one else benefits from the bill. Sure, they'll talk about pre-existing conditions being covered. But, they don't tell you what you're going to have to pay the insurance companies for one of those policies. And, we both know that it's not going to be the same as someone without a pre-existing condition.
Nothing the government has done in health care in the past 30 years has truly benefitted anyone but insurance companies. So much so that, the default position now is that insurance=healthcare. Until we get big insurance out of the picture, we'll never have affordable healthcare. Unfortunately, the democrats as well as the republicans won't dream of doing that. It would cost them too much in campaign dollars.
There was a lot of support for a single-payer system within the Democrats. The problem is that there was no support within the Republican party, and they were able to scare the Democrats into dropping the issue with the threat of calling them Socialists and comparing them to Stalin and such. Of course they continue to do that anyway, so basically the Democrats are just pussies that refuse to stand up for anything and actually fight for it. Hell, the speech the other day is the only time I've heard Obama sound even remotely passionate about anything. Unfortunately he was being passionate about giving in to the demands of the Republicans even when the Democrats had the high moral ground. If you can't win in that situation, you just aren't going to win, period. It's a little bizarre to have a Democratic Congress and President essentially carrying out the Republican agenda, but here we are...
You forgot the part about the government taxing you for INactivity, I make money they tax me, pretty simple. I could not make any money and they would not be able to tax me. Obamacare seeks to "tax" for inactivity. And of course remember this was never a tax according to the soon to be one termer during debate, until it was passed then oh yeah right it is a tax, but I digress.
The point made earlier which you refused to respond to legitimately is if the government can tax inactivity they can do anything they like. There is really no longer any freedom here only subjects beholden to the white house throne's decision of how it is best to run a life. You didn't go get a checkup yearly? You owe us 10,000 dollars, you didn't buy a electric car? You owe us 10,000 dollars, ad infinitum.
And btw, all those white house decision makers are immune to these laws themselves of course.
Instituting a tax to pay for health care is a legitimate government function. If you provide sufficient health care insurance for yourself, then you don't have to pay the tax because you're doing your part toward the goal of the tax already. It's really not that hard to understand.
Really I'll be one of the first 'tax' victims of this. It's much easier t pay the $750 or whatever amount it is 'fine' for not having insurance than the $615/month 'fine' to have insurance... In fact the later is downright insane (i was just quoted it today to btw).
Btw having been uninsured and needing to simply visit the doctor, I can tell you you absolutely cannot get out of paying it... They will literally hunt you down and try to try to extract money from your corpse if they need to. In fact I'm still paying on it 4 years later...Oh and unlike the couple hundred (form bills in the same period ~$230 with insurance) for a normal visit if you aren't insured it becomes over $1400... To see a doctor. You'll note that meant I paid 7 times that rate for an insured person.
The later case was when I ran my own 1 person business and wasn't making enough to pay the then $412/month for private health insurance... Especially when a roof, electricity, and a phone were required for me to ever make money and so had to come out of the first part of whatever I made. Their was never $412/month left over for insurance.
The first case is me now, 1 year into unemployment after I left my own business and went back to work.... And then was discarded as being 'to expensive' while making 1/5th what anyone who fired me makes... Which of course means no insurance... again. Lucky I haven't needed any in the last year. But I got news for them, I don't make enough $612/month while on unemployment. Heck I get about $612 per 2 weeks... In that money I have to pay rent, maintain a phone, electricity, food on the table, and being in IT a working PC is kinda required to keep the skills sharp... For whenever the powers that be decide to start hiring IT in my area again.
Most of the measures in the bill haven't taken effect yet, and won't until 2014. Until then, insurance companies are free to gouge away, and they are taking full advantage of it. Once we have the exchanges in place, there will at least be options, as well as subsidies for those who can't afford those options. Additionally, I still hold out some hope that if prices don't come down enough, that we will institute a public option that will have both lower overhead costs (like Medicare's ~2%) and be available at a more affordable price. If Democrats hadn't completely ducked the single-payer debate altogether, we might have gotten there a lot quicker. They were deathly afraid of the insurance industry though. I think they'll see where that got them when the industry starts attacking them again in the wake of this ruling. You can't negotiate with them, and they don't have the best interests of their customers as a priority. Their priority is profit, which means getting and keeping as many healthy people as possible and getting rid of as many sick people as possible. That's not the kind of health care system we should be supporting.
Why is this a federal tax, and not a state tax, then? Does the federal government dispatch ambulances to crash scenes? Im not really clear what the necessity for federal involvement on this is.
Doing it at the federal level ensures a much larger risk pool, which leads to greater resiliancy for the whole system, and is the only real way to provide for people with pre-existing conditions who can't buy health insurance at all right now. We need everyone in the system because there's no way to continue providing even emergency health care for all without paying for it. It makes no sense to just pay for horrendously expensive emergency care if we can get preventative and routine care for people as well, which will help prevent so many from having to resort to emergency care in the first place.
No, it's forcing you to pay a tax...you can avoid paying this tax by purchasing health care coverage for yourself.
What you say is true, in the same way that it is true that you can avoid being raped by having sex with your would-be rapist.
The point is that for every tax that currently exists, you can avoid the tax by refraining from the taxed activity. Generally, the amount you are taxed is related in some way to the amount you engage in that activity, as well. Even the closest analogue, requiring people to have auto insurance, works that that way: you could elect not to drive yourself. Many feel that even that goes too far.
The only activity you could refrain from, if you wanted to avoid the health care tax, would be breathing.
Yes, and you could make the same claim about income taxes. You could avoid income tax by not having any income, but it's still not practical. There are some things that require taxation to support, and health care is one of those things. We've had our experiment with private insurance and it has been a failure that has lead us to our current situation. Something very different needs to be done. The health care law is not what I believe is the best way to go, and I don't believe that most Democrats thought it was either, but since they don't operate as a solid block like the Republicans, they can't pass things like that even when they have a supermajority, especially when it's a supermajority that can't survive even a single defection. Ultimately it's still better than where we're at now, and I hope it will be improved over time.
That's not how it works. The argument is that an action is immoral if universalizing it would have disastrous effects. Yes I understand that the categorical imperative does not invalidate homosexuality, but that question you asked was "how does being unable to reproduce make homosexuality wrong". Indeed, if it did result in an inability to reproduce it would be immoral according to the categorical imperative.
Ok, but I'm asking for a reason why homosexuality is wrong, not some hypothetical situation in which it could be construed as wrong due to an imperative that we don't apply as a measure of morality in our culture anyway.
What's depressing is that you guys seem to have ended up with the worst of all possible health systems.
the expense, the inefficiency and the overall terribleness of a private system combined with the expense, the inefficiency and the overall terribleness of a public system.
Avoiding the advantages of either and getting the disadvantages of both.
I hate this idea that the government can do whatever it wants as long as it's indirect. For instance they can't force states to have certain speed limits but they can cut funding if they don't. I say the government *should not* be doing that, even if in some twisted interpretation of the Constitution it is allowed.
If the federal government is paying the bills for highway maintenance, then it seems entirely reasonable that they have a certain amount of say in how those highways get used.
The clause in question does NOT really criminalize failure to get insurance, it simply requires those that fail to buy a insurance to pay the government cash.
I think the distinction between unbounded taxation and compulsion can be a false one.
For example, if the government taxes me at 100% because I don't (for example) want to wear pink pajamas, then I'll be unable to provide adequate care for my children, and they can be taken away. Or it could make me homeless, which coupled with anti-loitering laws could essentially banish me from a city for now wearing pink pajamas, and it could all be done using the tax code.
So really, in the end, when the government can punish me with a ruinuos tax rate for doing something for which they can't throw me in prison, the distinction seems fairly moot.
Except that they aren't taxing you at 100% and you've made no case that this tax is ruinous. If you do attempt to make such an argument, be sure to explain why other taxes should or should not be considered ruinous so that we can see exactly what your criteria is and how it relates to modern tax law.
Not that it particularly matters, but I intend to. Now isn't the time for it, though - I'm 26, and have little establishment political background.
In 5 or 10 years, I'll have made the contacts necessary to try - until then, it would be pure folly.
Doesn't sound like you'd be an establishment candidate anyway. I don't see either party backing you on your health care view anyway. Of course if you are more like Rand Paul and flip flop on your views and/or add giant caveats that you'd previously neglected to mention, then I'm sure they'll have you.
That makes it immoral according to the categorical imperative, which states that you should only act in a way that can be universally applied. If no one were able to reproduce, society would end. I do believe, however, there are other options for reproduction, such as in-vitro fertilization.
That's a rather silly argument. If we actually enforced the categorical imperative, western civilization would come to a screeching halt. And of course you invalidated that argument anyway by noting that we have other reproductive options, so it's not really an issue anyway.
Got any other reason why homosexuality is "wrong"?
I'd be more than ok for the government to reduce it's waste and use the tax money already being collected towards basic health care for all. We all know how much waste medicare and medicaid have. Tighten the belt on those and a few other big ticket items (military spending, ahem) and voila, basic care for all. Also do something to reduce the operating costs of doctors. While my copay is $20, I went to the doc the other week basically to make sure my meds were working as intended... $130 cost for 10 minutes with the doctor, a prescription refill, and 20 minutes of staring at the wall in the exam room by myself.
Please elaborate on waste by Medicare and Medicaid. What problems do you see? How does their overhead compare with private companies? How about their payment rates for procedures?
Sure, the tea party people claim they want it repealed, but it's going to be interesting to actually ask them 'So you want insurance companies to deny insurance to children with pre-existing conditions again?'.
Don't forget to ask them if they've stopped beating their wives.
Not the same thing at all. Either we go back to the way things were before, or they come up with a better idea that would still cover those with pre-existing conditions. We have not heard of such a plan from the Republicans so far.
No because I'm a Pro-Choice person and this is anti-choice. It's forcing me to buy a product I don't want. It's no choice.
I can avoid the car insurance requirement by simply not driving, but there's no way for me to stop existing. I object to being forced to fall on my knees and suck Nationwide or Allstate or any other Corporation's phallus ("oh please sell my insurance & rape my wallet of $5000 Mr. CEO, else government will fine me"), especially in a country that is supposedly "free" and "celebrates liberty". That is not liberty. That is being demoted to a Serf (someone else runs your life and you are just a puppet).
Okay maybe I went a little overboard there. But hopefully it made you think. This requirement is nothing more than Corporate Welfare giving them guaranteed sales to 110 million homes. (I thought Democrats were against that?)
No, it's forcing you to pay a tax, something the government does for all sorts of reasons. In this case it's to ensure that everyone has health care coverage. You can avoid paying this tax by purchasing health care coverage for yourself. Object to the tax if you like, but someone has to pay for covering health care costs, and unless we're going to start turning people away from emergency care (the most expensive kind of care there is), that someone is government, via taxes. Personally, I think a single-payer system would be more efficient and serve us better, but the Republicans managed to shoot that down before we even got started, so now we end up with a system that benefits the insurance companies more than anyone else really. Sadly it's still better than what we have now, and I haven't heard of a better solution from the Republicans yet.
You know, this wouldn't be a problem if we just exterminated all the liberals. Conservatives don't expect other people to pay for their health care. They pay for their own.
Liberals - good for solving problems that wouldn't be problems if we didn't have liberals.
Are you proposing that emergency care services be denied for anyone who doesn't have proof of current insurance or cash on hand when they arrive?
From a Libertarian's perspective, "meaningful" means all of those in addition to axing the health insurance industry. That system is the biggest part of the cancer that is killing us. Once healthcare providers have no choice but to make services affordable or run out of customers, they will find a way. As long as health insurance exists, they will have no need to make services affordable.
How does a Libertarian go about preventing companies from selling health insurance?
Yet in a bizarre twist, this "young Republican" struck down the part of the law inserted for the benefit of the insurance companies. So the rest of the bill stands and people cannot be turned down due to pre-existing conditions, but they don't have to buy insurance until they are sick. Or am I not getting something?
It's not all that bizarre. The hope is that by getting rid of that provision, the insurance industry will restart their attacks on the health care law and support its repeal.
From trying to change the state seal (it has a mammary in it!) to just stating that "Homosexuality is wrong."
Yes, but, well... homosexuality *is* wrong. Homosexual homosapiens are physically unable to reproduce. That is the most damning evidence to support this position.
How does being unable to reproduce make homosexuality wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
There was a lot of support for a single-payer system within the Democrats. The problem is that there was no support within the Republican party, and they were able to scare the Democrats into dropping the issue with the threat of calling them Socialists and comparing them to Stalin and such. Of course they continue to do that anyway, so basically the Democrats are just pussies that refuse to stand up for anything and actually fight for it. Hell, the speech the other day is the only time I've heard Obama sound even remotely passionate about anything. Unfortunately he was being passionate about giving in to the demands of the Republicans even when the Democrats had the high moral ground. If you can't win in that situation, you just aren't going to win, period. It's a little bizarre to have a Democratic Congress and President essentially carrying out the Republican agenda, but here we are...
So, essentially, we're screwed even if one of the two parties actually has a good idea because they care more about politics than doing what they believe needs to be done.
And, that's why I'm clueless as to why people so passionately support either party. It's not like they actually believe enough in what they say to do anything about it... even when they have all the votes they need.
They're both power hungry hypocrites...
I'm clueless about that too. I'm an independent. I'm suspicious of both sides because we have a political system that is funded by special interests, and an election system that is rigged to try to make it as difficult as possible for anyone who is not a member of one of the two major parties to even get on the ballot, let alone get elected. It's a system that does everything possible to preserve the status quo, and ensures that the status quo is controlled by those with the money to fund the campaigns.
It's not a tax it's a penalty, it has only been called a tax since the question of constitutionality for a penalty was raised.
What it's called has no bearing on how it's implemented. If it's implemented as a tax, then it's a tax.
The law in question does not benefit insurance companies more than anyone else, in fact for any length of time longer than about 3 months (less in most cases) does it become cost effective for an individual to purchase health insurance not offered through an employer or similar program. In other words under this law the most cost effective way to handle health insurance is to only purchase it when you're costing the insurance companies more than you pay them. I believe the reason Kucinich changed his mind and voted for this is that it was explained to him that it would result in the destruction of the health insurance companies.
Right, it will result in the destruction of insurance companies. That must be why they got on board with it and supported the passage of the bill! It all makes sense now! Really, you need to explain yourself a bit here I think. The insurance industry got almost everything they asked for in the bill. I agree that the taxes may be set too low, but they are also going to become tied to the CPI after 2016, and aren't even implemented until 2014. I don't think the insurance companies are going to be hurt by this, especially with all the gouging they're doing right now. They apparently didn't think so either. There's plenty of time to tweak the rates, and I'm sure those won't be the only adjustments made to the law.
Once this law is repealed in full, we can finally start talking about health care reform for the first time. And no, this law was not better than what we had before it.
I guess you must have missed all the other times we've talked about it over the past several decades. This is all new to you. Hell, Eisenhower was trying to get universal health care established back in the fifties. Hell, this plan is essentially just an implementation of the Republican plan from the 90s.
Well, the democrats expressly didn't want to call it a tax, though, because they didn't want to be seen as increasing taxes. So, due to the semantics and mechanisms that trigger the payment, it is essentially a fine. That's the entire basis that enabled the judge to rule as he did. If they'd called it a tax, forced everyone to pay it, but give you a credit if you had insurance, it would have passed the test. But, political posturing stopped that from happening.
And, we ended up with a system that benefits the insurances companies, period. No one else benefits from the bill. Sure, they'll talk about pre-existing conditions being covered. But, they don't tell you what you're going to have to pay the insurance companies for one of those policies. And, we both know that it's not going to be the same as someone without a pre-existing condition.
Nothing the government has done in health care in the past 30 years has truly benefitted anyone but insurance companies. So much so that, the default position now is that insurance=healthcare. Until we get big insurance out of the picture, we'll never have affordable healthcare. Unfortunately, the democrats as well as the republicans won't dream of doing that. It would cost them too much in campaign dollars.
There was a lot of support for a single-payer system within the Democrats. The problem is that there was no support within the Republican party, and they were able to scare the Democrats into dropping the issue with the threat of calling them Socialists and comparing them to Stalin and such. Of course they continue to do that anyway, so basically the Democrats are just pussies that refuse to stand up for anything and actually fight for it. Hell, the speech the other day is the only time I've heard Obama sound even remotely passionate about anything. Unfortunately he was being passionate about giving in to the demands of the Republicans even when the Democrats had the high moral ground. If you can't win in that situation, you just aren't going to win, period. It's a little bizarre to have a Democratic Congress and President essentially carrying out the Republican agenda, but here we are...
You forgot the part about the government taxing you for INactivity, I make money they tax me, pretty simple. I could not make any money and they would not be able to tax me. Obamacare seeks to "tax" for inactivity. And of course remember this was never a tax according to the soon to be one termer during debate, until it was passed then oh yeah right it is a tax, but I digress.
The point made earlier which you refused to respond to legitimately is if the government can tax inactivity they can do anything they like. There is really no longer any freedom here only subjects beholden to the white house throne's decision of how it is best to run a life. You didn't go get a checkup yearly? You owe us 10,000 dollars, you didn't buy a electric car? You owe us 10,000 dollars, ad infinitum.
And btw, all those white house decision makers are immune to these laws themselves of course.
Instituting a tax to pay for health care is a legitimate government function. If you provide sufficient health care insurance for yourself, then you don't have to pay the tax because you're doing your part toward the goal of the tax already. It's really not that hard to understand.
Really I'll be one of the first 'tax' victims of this. It's much easier t pay the $750 or whatever amount it is 'fine' for not having insurance than the $615/month 'fine' to have insurance... In fact the later is downright insane (i was just quoted it today to btw).
Btw having been uninsured and needing to simply visit the doctor, I can tell you you absolutely cannot get out of paying it... They will literally hunt you down and try to try to extract money from your corpse if they need to. In fact I'm still paying on it 4 years later...Oh and unlike the couple hundred (form bills in the same period ~$230 with insurance) for a normal visit if you aren't insured it becomes over $1400... To see a doctor. You'll note that meant I paid 7 times that rate for an insured person.
The later case was when I ran my own 1 person business and wasn't making enough to pay the then $412/month for private health insurance... Especially when a roof, electricity, and a phone were required for me to ever make money and so had to come out of the first part of whatever I made. Their was never $412/month left over for insurance.
The first case is me now, 1 year into unemployment after I left my own business and went back to work.... And then was discarded as being 'to expensive' while making 1/5th what anyone who fired me makes... Which of course means no insurance... again. Lucky I haven't needed any in the last year. But I got news for them, I don't make enough $612/month while on unemployment. Heck I get about $612 per 2 weeks... In that money I have to pay rent, maintain a phone, electricity, food on the table, and being in IT a working PC is kinda required to keep the skills sharp... For whenever the powers that be decide to start hiring IT in my area again.
Most of the measures in the bill haven't taken effect yet, and won't until 2014. Until then, insurance companies are free to gouge away, and they are taking full advantage of it. Once we have the exchanges in place, there will at least be options, as well as subsidies for those who can't afford those options. Additionally, I still hold out some hope that if prices don't come down enough, that we will institute a public option that will have both lower overhead costs (like Medicare's ~2%) and be available at a more affordable price. If Democrats hadn't completely ducked the single-payer debate altogether, we might have gotten there a lot quicker. They were deathly afraid of the insurance industry though. I think they'll see where that got them when the industry starts attacking them again in the wake of this ruling. You can't negotiate with them, and they don't have the best interests of their customers as a priority. Their priority is profit, which means getting and keeping as many healthy people as possible and getting rid of as many sick people as possible. That's not the kind of health care system we should be supporting.
Why is this a federal tax, and not a state tax, then? Does the federal government dispatch ambulances to crash scenes? Im not really clear what the necessity for federal involvement on this is.
Doing it at the federal level ensures a much larger risk pool, which leads to greater resiliancy for the whole system, and is the only real way to provide for people with pre-existing conditions who can't buy health insurance at all right now. We need everyone in the system because there's no way to continue providing even emergency health care for all without paying for it. It makes no sense to just pay for horrendously expensive emergency care if we can get preventative and routine care for people as well, which will help prevent so many from having to resort to emergency care in the first place.
No, it's forcing you to pay a tax...you can avoid paying this tax by purchasing health care coverage for yourself.
What you say is true, in the same way that it is true that you can avoid being raped by having sex with your would-be rapist.
The point is that for every tax that currently exists, you can avoid the tax by refraining from the taxed activity. Generally, the amount you are taxed is related in some way to the amount you engage in that activity, as well. Even the closest analogue, requiring people to have auto insurance, works that that way: you could elect not to drive yourself. Many feel that even that goes too far.
The only activity you could refrain from, if you wanted to avoid the health care tax, would be breathing.
Yes, and you could make the same claim about income taxes. You could avoid income tax by not having any income, but it's still not practical. There are some things that require taxation to support, and health care is one of those things. We've had our experiment with private insurance and it has been a failure that has lead us to our current situation. Something very different needs to be done. The health care law is not what I believe is the best way to go, and I don't believe that most Democrats thought it was either, but since they don't operate as a solid block like the Republicans, they can't pass things like that even when they have a supermajority, especially when it's a supermajority that can't survive even a single defection. Ultimately it's still better than where we're at now, and I hope it will be improved over time.
That's not how it works. The argument is that an action is immoral if universalizing it would have disastrous effects. Yes I understand that the categorical imperative does not invalidate homosexuality, but that question you asked was "how does being unable to reproduce make homosexuality wrong". Indeed, if it did result in an inability to reproduce it would be immoral according to the categorical imperative.
Ok, but I'm asking for a reason why homosexuality is wrong, not some hypothetical situation in which it could be construed as wrong due to an imperative that we don't apply as a measure of morality in our culture anyway.
What's depressing is that you guys seem to have ended up with the worst of all possible health systems. the expense, the inefficiency and the overall terribleness of a private system combined with the expense, the inefficiency and the overall terribleness of a public system.
Avoiding the advantages of either and getting the disadvantages of both.
That's just how our Congress rolls!
I hate this idea that the government can do whatever it wants as long as it's indirect. For instance they can't force states to have certain speed limits but they can cut funding if they don't. I say the government *should not* be doing that, even if in some twisted interpretation of the Constitution it is allowed.
If the federal government is paying the bills for highway maintenance, then it seems entirely reasonable that they have a certain amount of say in how those highways get used.
If you don't do it and don't pay, people with guns will come and take you to prison. De facto criminalization, no?
Please point to the section of the law that states that you can be imprisoned for failing to pay. I will wait here, tapping my foot, while you do so.
Our government is founded on documents written in plain English, they are almost entirely clear, obvious, and unambiguous.
LOL!! Tears, man! I'm in tears!! It's like you have no knowledge of Constitutional history at all!!
I think the distinction between unbounded taxation and compulsion can be a false one.
For example, if the government taxes me at 100% because I don't (for example) want to wear pink pajamas, then I'll be unable to provide adequate care for my children, and they can be taken away. Or it could make me homeless, which coupled with anti-loitering laws could essentially banish me from a city for now wearing pink pajamas, and it could all be done using the tax code.
So really, in the end, when the government can punish me with a ruinuos tax rate for doing something for which they can't throw me in prison, the distinction seems fairly moot.
Except that they aren't taxing you at 100% and you've made no case that this tax is ruinous. If you do attempt to make such an argument, be sure to explain why other taxes should or should not be considered ruinous so that we can see exactly what your criteria is and how it relates to modern tax law.
When Congress was debating this bill, its proponents were very emphatic that this provision was not a tax. Now, you want to argue that it is a tax?
Congressman says a lot of things, OH YEAH!!!
Not that it particularly matters, but I intend to. Now isn't the time for it, though - I'm 26, and have little establishment political background.
In 5 or 10 years, I'll have made the contacts necessary to try - until then, it would be pure folly.
Doesn't sound like you'd be an establishment candidate anyway. I don't see either party backing you on your health care view anyway. Of course if you are more like Rand Paul and flip flop on your views and/or add giant caveats that you'd previously neglected to mention, then I'm sure they'll have you.
That makes it immoral according to the categorical imperative, which states that you should only act in a way that can be universally applied. If no one were able to reproduce, society would end. I do believe, however, there are other options for reproduction, such as in-vitro fertilization.
That's a rather silly argument. If we actually enforced the categorical imperative, western civilization would come to a screeching halt. And of course you invalidated that argument anyway by noting that we have other reproductive options, so it's not really an issue anyway.
Got any other reason why homosexuality is "wrong"?
I'd be more than ok for the government to reduce it's waste and use the tax money already being collected towards basic health care for all. We all know how much waste medicare and medicaid have. Tighten the belt on those and a few other big ticket items (military spending, ahem) and voila, basic care for all. Also do something to reduce the operating costs of doctors. While my copay is $20, I went to the doc the other week basically to make sure my meds were working as intended... $130 cost for 10 minutes with the doctor, a prescription refill, and 20 minutes of staring at the wall in the exam room by myself.
Please elaborate on waste by Medicare and Medicaid. What problems do you see? How does their overhead compare with private companies? How about their payment rates for procedures?
Don't forget to ask them if they've stopped beating their wives.
Not the same thing at all. Either we go back to the way things were before, or they come up with a better idea that would still cover those with pre-existing conditions. We have not heard of such a plan from the Republicans so far.
I would propose that the ER have the option of refusing service, yes.
Fine. Then I would suggest you run for office on that platform and see how many people agree with you.
No because I'm a Pro-Choice person and this is anti-choice. It's forcing me to buy a product I don't want. It's no choice.
I can avoid the car insurance requirement by simply not driving, but there's no way for me to stop existing. I object to being forced to fall on my knees and suck Nationwide or Allstate or any other Corporation's phallus ("oh please sell my insurance & rape my wallet of $5000 Mr. CEO, else government will fine me"), especially in a country that is supposedly "free" and "celebrates liberty". That is not liberty. That is being demoted to a Serf (someone else runs your life and you are just a puppet).
Okay maybe I went a little overboard there. But hopefully it made you think. This requirement is nothing more than Corporate Welfare giving them guaranteed sales to 110 million homes. (I thought Democrats were against that?)
No, it's forcing you to pay a tax, something the government does for all sorts of reasons. In this case it's to ensure that everyone has health care coverage. You can avoid paying this tax by purchasing health care coverage for yourself. Object to the tax if you like, but someone has to pay for covering health care costs, and unless we're going to start turning people away from emergency care (the most expensive kind of care there is), that someone is government, via taxes. Personally, I think a single-payer system would be more efficient and serve us better, but the Republicans managed to shoot that down before we even got started, so now we end up with a system that benefits the insurance companies more than anyone else really. Sadly it's still better than what we have now, and I haven't heard of a better solution from the Republicans yet.
You know, this wouldn't be a problem if we just exterminated all the liberals. Conservatives don't expect other people to pay for their health care. They pay for their own.
Liberals - good for solving problems that wouldn't be problems if we didn't have liberals.
Are you proposing that emergency care services be denied for anyone who doesn't have proof of current insurance or cash on hand when they arrive?
From a Libertarian's perspective, "meaningful" means all of those in addition to axing the health insurance industry. That system is the biggest part of the cancer that is killing us. Once healthcare providers have no choice but to make services affordable or run out of customers, they will find a way. As long as health insurance exists, they will have no need to make services affordable.
How does a Libertarian go about preventing companies from selling health insurance?
Just enough to match the people who voted on it, I suppose.
Nice attempt at deflection...
I bet it is awesome, all the way up until you take into account the value for the dollar.
Out of curiosity, what are you basing that claim on?
Yet in a bizarre twist, this "young Republican" struck down the part of the law inserted for the benefit of the insurance companies. So the rest of the bill stands and people cannot be turned down due to pre-existing conditions, but they don't have to buy insurance until they are sick. Or am I not getting something?
It's not all that bizarre. The hope is that by getting rid of that provision, the insurance industry will restart their attacks on the health care law and support its repeal.
From trying to change the state seal (it has a mammary in it!) to just stating that "Homosexuality is wrong."
Yes, but, well... homosexuality *is* wrong. Homosexual homosapiens are physically unable to reproduce. That is the most damning evidence to support this position.
How does being unable to reproduce make homosexuality wrong?