"But given that, you're complaining about being forced to buy something you already have - and, presumably believe it's a good idea to have (otherwise you'd opt-out)?"
I already have it now, at this moment in time. What happens in the future if it costs so much or I get so little benefit that I no longer think it is worth it and I want to opt out? Oops, Big Brother says I still have to buy it because they know best. Too bad for me.
Income tax: I earn income (an action taken on my part) Auto insurance: Only if I buy a car (an action taken on my part) Property tax: Only if I buy a property (an action taken on my part) Health care: Only if you can get sick or injured (NO action taken on my part; it's only because I exist and am human)
Can you tell me which one of these things it not the same as the other?
"Most medical conditions make it impossible to go to the bathroom or put your shirt on?"
No, I was just pointing out a few of the requirements to show how low of a threshold there is in general for it to be considered an emergency. Read the whole list, and see how many of them are far from an emergency. Mobility? sprained ankle could be considered an emergency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act "Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions."
Now, you might say "Ah-ha!! It specifically says 'emergency healthcare'!". However, further down the wiki page, you will note some of the conditions required for it to no longer be an emergency:
The patient is able to care for themselves, with or without special equipment, which if needed, must be provided. The required abilities are:
* Breathing
* Feeding
* Mobility
* Dressing
* Personal hygiene
* Toileting
* Medicating
* Communication Yes, if you can't go to the bathroom or put your shirt on, it's an 'emergency'. So the law effectively means that nearly any medical condition is an emergency. And furthermore, the ER has to take the time to diagnose the patient in the first place, which costs money and increases wait times.
"I don't think the federal government is forcing emergency room doctors to provide comprehensive care." You can think that all you want, but it doesn't make it true.
Anecdotal evidence alert: My father in law had severe stomach and back pains in the middle of the night and went to the ER. After waiting several hours, my wife finally took him home so that he could more comfortably lay in bed rather than sit up in the hard ER chairs. Luckily the pain went away after a few more hours, but it was our first glimpse at how poor ER care has become.
1. Who said I didn't have health insurance already? My complaint is that I am now mandated by law to get it. 2. ERs can still try to collect money from those without insurance that they treat. It's not an automatic free ride. 3. Notice all those overcrowded ERs (at least those that haven't closed) with people that have non-emergency problems? Wasn't it great that the Federal Government forced all of our ERs to take on these cases against their will? I'm glad they are going to force us to do more things against our will.
Wow, who modded this insightful? You have no idea who the founders were or what they stood for, do you? They wanted government to get out of the way of people trying to succeed. They wanted equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Remember, it says "pursuit of happiness", not just "happiness". The pursuit part falls on the individual.
"If you earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year then you can spare a couple of grant to help a poor family get health insurance" Should I pay their rent? Utilities? Food? Where does it stop? A few thousand dollars out of a few hundred thousand dollars isn't too much... until you see a hundred hands each asking for a few thousand dollars.
I hate when people bring up the "what about socialized roads/fire/police". There is a simple and obvious reason that the government is in charge of those. Individuals couldn't afford to each keep their own fire and police force around for the occasional emergency, and would we really want everyone to have to lay out their own roads to everywhere?
Medical insurance is working with private citizens voluntarily contracting with private companies. And here is the real kicker: If you think medical insurance is such a bad deal, you don't have to get it! Clearly most people still feel it is worth the cost, or they simply wouldn't pay for it. But now the government is going to tell you to pay for it, even if you think the cost isn't worth it.
The real problem I have with this 'you must buy health insurance or else' clause, is the fact that I now have to pay money for the right to be a citizen of this country.
This has never existed before. All previous taxes/fees/mandated insurance were based on you doing/earning something first:
Income taxes: Only if you earn money
Auto insurance: Only if you drive a car
Property taxes: Only if you own property
Now, however, the second you become an adult in this country you have to pony up money to the government or insurance company, or else you will be fined.
I do not believe that my religion is the only true religion -- such a statement in and of itself, to me, is nonsense. The Western World seems to love the dichotomy -- yes or no, right or wrong, black or white.
Yeah, I wish we were more like those eastern religions... especially around the middle... that are sooooo tolerant of other religions.
But no one is forcing you to take the little green pieces of paper in exchange for your car, are they? You could exchange the car for 10,000 Twinkies if you want, assuming you can find someone with 10,000 Twinkies that needs a car.
Exchanging money for goods/services is just bartering done more efficiently.
You are a chump. What I do in some other state is NONE of my home state's (California) business.
And to call it a 'use' tax is such an obvious attempt to get around the interstate commerce restriction. The tax has nothing to do with the use of an item. If I buy a TV in California and use it, I pay ZERO use tax. However, the same TV purchased in another state and brought to California to use is slapped with a use tax. I still can't believe the Supreme Court fell for that nonsense and allowed the use tax to continue.
Who bothered to mod this 'insightful'? There are so many nonsensical statements in here that I won't even bother going through all of them.
"Ask yourself if you were introduced to a person and you found out that they were murderers would you think of them the same way?"
No, I would not. But that's their problem, not mine. You don't want to be thought of as a murderer? DON'T MURDER!
Think of it this way: one of these guys gets out of prison, and then starts advertising as in home child care providers. Wouldn't you want to be able to find out that they have murdered someone? Or are you perfectly OK handing over your child to a killer?
"...but even that's iffy considering Obama got almost 100% of the black votes"
Blacks always vote around 90% for Dems. Kerry got around 88%, and Obama got 95%. The black vote didn't win the election for Obama. Everyone being fed up with Republicans in charge won him the election.
"I honestly don't think anybody could have won against Obama"
I honestly don't think any Democrat could have lost against any Republican. Two wars, Katrina, budget deficits, collapsing economy... people were ready to put the other party in charge. Then in about two more election cycles, we'll start to get fed up with them in charge, and switch back to Republicans again. And then we'll switch back again, thinking that this time it will fix things.
Well thought out, but it is waaaay too complicated considering that there are many voters that can't even put a proper mark in a box with a frickin' pencil.
No one is "taking away the ability to marry". Gays want a new definition of marriage.
As much as the gay rights groups would like to think that they are treated differently than others when it comes to marriage, they are not. They scream "Straight people can marry whoever they want, and I can't!", and that is just not true. A straight man and a gay man have the exact same restrictions on who they can marry.
Note: I have no problem with same sex marriage, but I hate ignorant arguments in favor of it.
The worst 'lazy' computer user I ever saw was one of the owners of the company I worked for. While doing a reinstall of his laptop, I saw that his trash folder was huge, so I went ahead and emptied it. When he opened Outlook, he asked "What happened to all my emails?" I asked him which emails he was referring to, and he said the ones in the trash bin. Come to find out, he used the trash bin as his 'archive'. What a lazy moron.
Slashdot Mirror
"But given that, you're complaining about being forced to buy something you already have - and, presumably believe it's a good idea to have (otherwise you'd opt-out)?"
I already have it now, at this moment in time. What happens in the future if it costs so much or I get so little benefit that I no longer think it is worth it and I want to opt out? Oops, Big Brother says I still have to buy it because they know best. Too bad for me.
Christ, dude, do I have to spell it out for you?
Income tax: I earn income (an action taken on my part)
Auto insurance: Only if I buy a car (an action taken on my part)
Property tax: Only if I buy a property (an action taken on my part)
Health care: Only if you can get sick or injured (NO action taken on my part; it's only because I exist and am human)
Can you tell me which one of these things it not the same as the other?
"Health Care: Only if you can get sick or injured"
So what you are saying is: being human. Yeah, great argument against me there. Sheesh.
"...but your logic fails."
I'm not really going to worry about your opinion on my logic, base on what I've seen you put up so far.
Didn't know about the income threshold, so I guess I overstated the effect of this law.
"Most medical conditions make it impossible to go to the bathroom or put your shirt on?"
No, I was just pointing out a few of the requirements to show how low of a threshold there is in general for it to be considered an emergency. Read the whole list, and see how many of them are far from an emergency. Mobility? sprained ankle could be considered an emergency.
"There would be nothing unconstitutional about a poll tax."
What the balls??? That was ruled unconstitutional a long time ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_Board_of_Elections
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
"Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions."
Now, you might say "Ah-ha!! It specifically says 'emergency healthcare'!". However, further down the wiki page, you will note some of the conditions required for it to no longer be an emergency:
The patient is able to care for themselves, with or without special equipment, which if needed, must be provided. The required abilities are:
* Breathing
* Feeding
* Mobility
* Dressing
* Personal hygiene
* Toileting
* Medicating
* Communication
Yes, if you can't go to the bathroom or put your shirt on, it's an 'emergency'. So the law effectively means that nearly any medical condition is an emergency. And furthermore, the ER has to take the time to diagnose the patient in the first place, which costs money and increases wait times.
"I don't think the federal government is forcing emergency room doctors to provide comprehensive care."
You can think that all you want, but it doesn't make it true.
Anecdotal evidence alert: My father in law had severe stomach and back pains in the middle of the night and went to the ER. After waiting several hours, my wife finally took him home so that he could more comfortably lay in bed rather than sit up in the hard ER chairs. Luckily the pain went away after a few more hours, but it was our first glimpse at how poor ER care has become.
Eh, how would I have a tax on zero income? And would I care if the government gave itself some money? Not really.
Remember, the insurance premium I HAVE TO PAY isn't going to the government... it is going to a private company.
1. Who said I didn't have health insurance already? My complaint is that I am now mandated by law to get it.
2. ERs can still try to collect money from those without insurance that they treat. It's not an automatic free ride.
3. Notice all those overcrowded ERs (at least those that haven't closed) with people that have non-emergency problems? Wasn't it great that the Federal Government forced all of our ERs to take on these cases against their will? I'm glad they are going to force us to do more things against our will.
Wow, who modded this insightful? You have no idea who the founders were or what they stood for, do you? They wanted government to get out of the way of people trying to succeed. They wanted equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Remember, it says "pursuit of happiness", not just "happiness". The pursuit part falls on the individual.
"If you earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year then you can spare a couple of grant to help a poor family get health insurance"
Should I pay their rent? Utilities? Food? Where does it stop? A few thousand dollars out of a few hundred thousand dollars isn't too much... until you see a hundred hands each asking for a few thousand dollars.
I hate when people bring up the "what about socialized roads/fire/police". There is a simple and obvious reason that the government is in charge of those. Individuals couldn't afford to each keep their own fire and police force around for the occasional emergency, and would we really want everyone to have to lay out their own roads to everywhere?
Medical insurance is working with private citizens voluntarily contracting with private companies. And here is the real kicker: If you think medical insurance is such a bad deal, you don't have to get it! Clearly most people still feel it is worth the cost, or they simply wouldn't pay for it. But now the government is going to tell you to pay for it, even if you think the cost isn't worth it.
California: $450/week :-)
http://www.edd.ca.gov/pdf_pub_ctr/de1275a.pdf (page 12)
I call bullshit on your bullshit call... sir
This has never existed before. All previous taxes/fees/mandated insurance were based on you doing/earning something first:
Income taxes: Only if you earn money
Auto insurance: Only if you drive a car
Property taxes: Only if you own property
Now, however, the second you become an adult in this country you have to pony up money to the government or insurance company, or else you will be fined.
And what website was taken down? And how exactly did the US enforce this take down in a country that it has no power over?
I do not believe that my religion is the only true religion -- such a statement in and of itself, to me, is nonsense. The Western World seems to love the dichotomy -- yes or no, right or wrong, black or white.
Yeah, I wish we were more like those eastern religions... especially around the middle... that are sooooo tolerant of other religions.
But no one is forcing you to take the little green pieces of paper in exchange for your car, are they? You could exchange the car for 10,000 Twinkies if you want, assuming you can find someone with 10,000 Twinkies that needs a car.
Exchanging money for goods/services is just bartering done more efficiently.
You are a chump. What I do in some other state is NONE of my home state's (California) business.
And to call it a 'use' tax is such an obvious attempt to get around the interstate commerce restriction. The tax has nothing to do with the use of an item. If I buy a TV in California and use it, I pay ZERO use tax. However, the same TV purchased in another state and brought to California to use is slapped with a use tax. I still can't believe the Supreme Court fell for that nonsense and allowed the use tax to continue.
Who bothered to mod this 'insightful'? There are so many nonsensical statements in here that I won't even bother going through all of them.
"Ask yourself if you were introduced to a person and you found out that they were murderers would you think of them the same way?"
No, I would not. But that's their problem, not mine. You don't want to be thought of as a murderer? DON'T MURDER!
Think of it this way: one of these guys gets out of prison, and then starts advertising as in home child care providers. Wouldn't you want to be able to find out that they have murdered someone? Or are you perfectly OK handing over your child to a killer?
"...but even that's iffy considering Obama got almost 100% of the black votes"
Blacks always vote around 90% for Dems. Kerry got around 88%, and Obama got 95%. The black vote didn't win the election for Obama. Everyone being fed up with Republicans in charge won him the election.
"I honestly don't think anybody could have won against Obama"
I honestly don't think any Democrat could have lost against any Republican. Two wars, Katrina, budget deficits, collapsing economy... people were ready to put the other party in charge. Then in about two more election cycles, we'll start to get fed up with them in charge, and switch back to Republicans again. And then we'll switch back again, thinking that this time it will fix things.
"...it's about making minorities criminals."
How did you come to that conclusion? Are you saying that minorities are are more likely to be drug users than white people?
It makes sense when you think about how you say dates:
May 14th
December 5th
The month comes first, and then the date. Try the other way:
The 14th of May
The 5th of December
Although you can say dates that way, most people don't. (at least in the US)
The 24 hour clock would be nice, but it's not often that AM and PM are confused (2 o'clock? OMG, did he mean AM or PM????)
But as an engineer, I like working in Metric more than English units. My only gripe is how much longer the Metric words are to say in conversation:
Mile vs. Kilometer (2 syllables vs. 4)
Inch vs. Centimeter (1 vs. 4)
Pound vs. Kilogram (1 vs. 3)
Etc.
Well thought out, but it is waaaay too complicated considering that there are many voters that can't even put a proper mark in a box with a frickin' pencil.
No one is "taking away the ability to marry". Gays want a new definition of marriage.
As much as the gay rights groups would like to think that they are treated differently than others when it comes to marriage, they are not. They scream "Straight people can marry whoever they want, and I can't!", and that is just not true. A straight man and a gay man have the exact same restrictions on who they can marry.
Note: I have no problem with same sex marriage, but I hate ignorant arguments in favor of it.
...please make sure to stop by our convenient memory erasing station, so that you don't carry unauthorized memories out of the theater.
Where was this device when I made the mistake of seeing 'Ultraviolet'? /shudders
The worst 'lazy' computer user I ever saw was one of the owners of the company I worked for. While doing a reinstall of his laptop, I saw that his trash folder was huge, so I went ahead and emptied it. When he opened Outlook, he asked "What happened to all my emails?" I asked him which emails he was referring to, and he said the ones in the trash bin. Come to find out, he used the trash bin as his 'archive'. What a lazy moron.