The biggest reason tablets have never succeeded more is because they've always been expensive. I've seen some tablets I'd love to own, but they're in the $2,000 - $2,500 range, which is way more than I'll spend on a tablet. Now that we're reaching the point where costs are low enough that they can make decently powered tablets in the $500-$700 range, which is where the typical laptop is (I said laptop, not netbook), I think that they'll sell a lot more.
Go throughout history and you see plenty of innovations that never catch on until a decade or so later when the prices drop significantly to where people don't view buying one as a major investment.
No, I didn't use a sob story. I asked whether you have any compassion or not since you didn't seem to. You could also see it as me pointing out how flawed your generalization was.
No, you used a sob story to try to make it seem like anyone who would hold people responsible for paying for their own treatment is "evil". As I pointed out to you earlier, just because you feel sorry for someone doesn't excuse theft on their behalf. If you want to give them your own money (charity) of your own free will, then that's great! I donate to charities too - however, forcefully taking money from people to give to someone else is theft, plain and simple. Just because the government says it's ok doesn't mean it is (see all the countless unjust laws governments have had, such as slavery, jim crow laws, anti-gay laws, etc). I read a quote once from someone criticisim socialism about 150 years ago who said "If I cannot legally do something, what right do I have to ask someone else (read:the government) to do it on my behalf?"
I never have, and never will, argued against charity. I actually promote it quite a bit. However, there is never an excuse for forcefully taking on persons property (that includes money) for onther persons personal gain.
Government should have whatever functions people through a democratic process decide it should have.
See, there's one pesky problem with the US federal government "having whatever functions people want" - it's called The US Constitution. It specifies the powers of the government, which are quite limited - it then has the 10th Amendment which says that any powers NOT specifically given to the government are given to the states. I never once said that states can't implement socialist health care, because they have the authority to do so. It would still me horribly unjust, but it's pretty easy for people to pack up and move if they dislike it. It's very easy to move from one state to another - it's much harder to move from one country to another, especially since, despite all the freedoms we've lost in the last 20 years, every other country is a worse place to live.
If you think that it is theft when tax dollars being used for anything else than what you personally agree with, you could just as well say that you oppose democracy. And maybe you indeed do.
No, I'm very much for democracy, much more than you (you support tyranny of the majority, which is not the same as democracy). In a democracy, no one has the right to vote away someone else's rights - that means you can't use popular vote to pass a law that says blacks can't vote or people MUST give their own property to someone else. Tyranny of the majority, your view, is that as long as the majority wants it, it's ok - that's not how democracy works.
So if you need to use the services of the police department, you're doing something immoral because the services are paid for by everyone even though not everyone need them.
First, everyone benefits equally from the police - the police are there to capture criminals equally, regardless of where you live or how much money you make, and their presence acts as a deterrent for everyone equally. Secondly, police are paid for with local taxes, meaning that areas that need more police pay more. Then there's also the fact that there's so few police officers per 1,000 citizens that the amount paid per person is very low, which cannot be said for government run health care.
That's the very issue here. What should be done when some people need healthcare more than they can possibly afford no matter what they do? Usually ability to have a high income has an inverse correlation with the need for healthcare.
What should be done? You ask for charity or help from friends / family / religious organization you belong to. You don't steal. Stealing is never justified
It's relevant because you were using the sob story "some people are just born with medical problems". I was too, but that doesn't mean that anyone else is responsible for you.
If you wish to argue that taxes are theft, I'd like to first know whether your opinion then also is that healthcare is the very worst purpose to spend taxpayer money on.
Taxes are for the necessary functions of government. Any program that goes beyond the necessary function of government (and in the case of the federal government in the US, that's regulating trade, providing for the national defense, running the legal system, and that's pretty much it) that uses tax dollars to pay for it is theft. And yes, healthcare is a pretty poor thing to spend tax dollars on. For one, it's immoral to force anyone to pay for another persons expenses. Next there's the fact that some people use more medical care than others - that means that you have a large portion of the country paying while using little resources while others use a disproportionate amount - that's why insurance companies adjust your rates based on your medical expenses, because those who use more services need to pay more (just like how if you order more food, you pay more money - same with everything else). Then there's the fact that government run healthcare provides a much lower quality of care (read the studies that discuss the unbelievably long wait times or the government denying treatment because it's not cost effective, also, read the more recent articles about how several of the prominent socialist countries are having issues with their medical treatment because despite the massive amount of tax funds spend on medical treatment, it's still not enough and they can't afford to raise taxes any higher).
I haven't said that supporting those makes anyone a bad person and why would I since they're good issues to support?
Government run healthcare runs contrary to freedom, personal responsibility, and property rights. It really is an "either / or" situation - you support one or the other, because they're polar opposites. You saying that you support freedom / personal responsibility / property rights and saying you support government run healthcare is like someone saying that they're a vegan and think it's morally wrong to eat meat, then saying that they're having steak for dinner because it tastes great.
So you have absolutely no compassion for those who are not only born with a medical condition due to which they'll suffer all their lives but that also cannot afford the treatments that would make their lives a little more bearable?
I was born with an incurable disease, so you're going to have to try harder than that. Also, just because you feel sorry for someone doesn't excuse theft.
Are they greedy, if they think that everyone should chip in a little?
It depends on how they want to go about it. If they want to take donations, then no. However if you want to forcefully take peoples money (which is how government run programs work), then yes, it is greedy and wrong.
I'm not religious but if I were, I'd say that they're not the ones going to hell.
Yes, how dare I support freedom, personal responsibility, and property rights. I'm such a horrible person!
Your entire inane ramble here is summed up by "I want someone else to pay my costs for me". You're a lazy, greedy bastard and that's why you support "free" healthcare, because you want everyone else to pay your way.
Ever actually read the document? Surely, you've read the Preamble - the statement of intent that covers everything else in the document? Specifically, the part about "promote the general welfare"? Or, how about the Declaration of Independence, where the framers of the constitution stated that it was self-evident that all mankind has the right to life, as well as the pursuit of happiness?
I have, you haven't. There's a pesky little thing called the 10th Amendment that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I've also bothered to read things from the founding fathers, which is why I also know that Thomas Jefferson said this to explain the "general welfare" clause that people like you want to use to excuse tyranny “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
You have no argument constitutionally or morally. You simply want others to have to pay your bills for you, and for that I say you can go to hell, you greedy bastard.
You did not characterize Fox as the villain, you said "Fox is the figurehead and spokesman for that rabid chicken". I don't care if you bash Fox (just as long as you're willing to bash other news groups when they're horribly biased as well), but you weren't just bashing Fox - the way you worded your argument, you were bashing anyone who disagrees with you.
Oh, I also forgot in my other response - the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Look at pretty much every other western country, and you'll find that health insurance isn't rival nor excludable, because they see an advantage to cheap and readily accessible health care.
Not even going into quality of care issues, look at the tax rates they pay for that - Denmark is a pretty typical European country and their LOWEST tax bracket is TWICE that in the US, then they add the VAT on top of that (which is generally at least twice as high as the highest state sales tax in the US). I'm not debating quality or readily accessible here (there's more than enough evidence to prove that government run health care is lower quality AND less accessible due to long wait times), but you can't try to claim it's "cheap". Just because they don't hand you a bill and take it out of your paycheck before you get it doesn't make it "free" or "cheap". Run the numbers, the "free" health care and "free" education of those countries costs way more in the long run than it'll cost in the US.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
First, life expectancy being lower in the US has to do with a different culture, specifically regarding eating and exercise habits. Unless you're suggesting that a government official force you to eat the government approved diet and force you to do government mandated exercises, you're never going to change that element with laws. Secondly, the infant mortality numbers are a lie. Even just a cursory glance at Wikipedia shows that other countries alter their data to decrease their infant mortality rate (if you take the time, you can find better sources for it as well). How do they do this? Things such as if the baby doesn't weigh X pounds and dies, they don't count it as a live birth. If it isn't X inches / cm long and dies, they don't count it. If it's less than 24 hours old when it dies, they don't count it. If it's more than X days premature and dies, they don't count it. In the US if a baby is born alive, even if it's only alive for a minute and is ridiculously tiny and premature, they still count it as a live birth.
The outraged opposition from "Real Americans" to public health care is entirely a manufactured product [alternet.org], supported by those who have interests in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Oh great, a false claim where you say that anyone who disagrees with you is bought off! I disagree with you because I value my rights, believe in upholding the Constitution (the bill is unconstitutional, fyi - check out the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution), and don't want to see my costs go up or my taxes go up to pay for someone else's health treatment. None of those things come from "interests in the insurance or pharmaceutical industries", they come from me having an Economics degree, having read the US Constitution, and having seen (not just in reports / new stories, but first hand from friends / relatives themselves in Europe) that the wonders of government run health care are a myth.
On a personal note, I talk with some friends from Europe on a regular basis about this, and they don't really understand the fuss, or the need for insurance to be involved. One friend from Denmark summed it up by saying "If you're a citizen, you pay taxes and get health care. If you're sick, you go to the doctor, you get treated, the doctor sends the bill to the government. The end".
And they pay out the ass for that "privilege". In the US, federal income tax is between 15% - 35%, with state income tax being on average about 5% - so a US citizen (that pays taxes, the lower income ones don't) pays 20% - 40% in income taxes. They then (depending on state) pay anywhere from 0%-10% on sales tax. In Denmark, income taxes are 38%-59% and then they pay a 25% VAT on everything they buy. If you want to cut your income by 25% just to get "free" insurance, then you really need to retake some math / finance / economics classes.
As opposed to my current situation, where the Family Practitioner that my family has been going to since my son was born (the OB/GYN that delivered him works there) is now suddenly not covered by my insurance company - EVEN THOUGH the insurance company's own website says that certain doctors at the practice participate, and EVEN THOUGH we have previously had coverage for things performed at the doc's place. We got a bill for over $500 for a STATE MANDATED health checkup for my son that was required before he could enroll in Kindergarten - not a drop of it was covered. My employer stepped in and reimbursed me for a portion of it, but told me sadly that they couldn't fight the insurance company and that I'd have to change doctors.
I agree, that sucks, and we should probably pass a law to prevent that. However, changing doctors and complaining about it is like complaining about having to go to a new mechanic - there are others you can go to. Yes, it's a bit of a hassle to take the time to find one, but it's nothing critical.
Oh, I also want to note the
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
Actually, given that Obama and many other prominent Democrats have said in interviews "this is the first step towards single-payer health care", it is relevant. So saying that their goal of single-payer health care is irrelevant to the debate is like saying that you shouldn't worry about the foundation of a house until the whole house is built.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The argument is essentially: hey, we're going broke trying to provide healthcare and doing it radically worse with fewer covered than any other developed nation Vs. you're a socialist tyrant who wants to destroy our way of live, kill our elderly relatives and force all of our women to have abortions! That's not an argument, it's a reasoned position vs. a rabid chicken.
Wow, distorting things from bias much?
Try "this sounds like a great idea on paper (even though the countries that do it are suffering massive problems due to costs), but we're sure we can make it work" vs. "it's unconstitutional, it violates peoples rights, and it's going to put costs off the chart when our country is already massively in debt".
I love how you start out complaining about people not having a real debate and then end by slandering anyone who disagrees with you by calling them "a rabid chicken".
Bull. I know many people who are low income and have had diabetes for decades and the cost has never been an issue. You're also ignoring the fact that the US already has government insurance programs for: kids, the poor, and the elderly.
It's irrational the way the system now is mostly controlled by employer-based insurance, with no reasonable way for individuals to shop for insurance on their own, or to be able to buy it at reasonable costs when then change jobs.
is just plain false. There are already easy ways to get insurance at reasonable costs, such as going to www.ehealthinsurance.com - that's where I went when I ended up between jobs and needing insurance. It's a myth that insurance is extremely expensive / impossible to get on your own.
The way we work around this is the unpopular part. We put a mandate on everybody that says "alright, since they can't kick you out anymore, you can't game the system: everyone has to be insured"
It's not just unpopular, it's unconstitutional as well.
No it doesn't. They can just raise premiums and pay for some of the more expensive surgeries that they already don't. Remember, we're dealing with percentages here, so the more they spend, the larger their profit is allowed to be. There's plenty of mathematical "magic" they can do to increase their profits.
Like you said, there are a few worthwhile things in the bill. However, the American people would be much better off if they passed those things as individual laws (parents being allowed to have children on their insurance until they're 26, insurance companies can't revoke your insurance retroactively) instead of trying to force through this monstrosity of a bill.
>>if this is going to affect roughly 1/6th of our economy, let's study and get it right.
But it's a step in the right direction (while not perfect or even ideal)
Would you care to give some reasoning as to how it's a step in the right direction?
And by fix it, I personally mean remove more profit motive - remove profits - from the health care industry itself.
There is no room for consideration of profit over health care decisions
Then kiss all of those new medicines goodbye. Kiss the innovations in things like pacemakers goodbye. If you cut out any profit from just the costs of treating, then there's no money to innovate and improve treatments. If you cap doctors pay at a low amount, you'll see fewer doctors. I know several doctors and med school is one of the worst (and most expensive) things you can imagine. They tough it out though because they know they'll be well rewarded later - if you start eliminating the incentives for people to become doctors, you start cutting down on the number of doctors because they'll say "I can go into another field and make just as much money, while having a less stressful job and less money in student loans".
Yes, it's a nice sound bite to say "There is no room for consideration of profit over health care decisions", but when you take reality into account, it's actually a bad idea because it harms the very people you're claiming to want to help.
First, it mandates that everyone buy insurance because apparently, 30 million people go without it merely because someone is not making them. Second, it promises that rates will go down, despite the fact that when governments have mandated insurance before (such as states requiring auto insurance), it only goes UP. Third, the only consumer "protection" in the bill entails the government telling providers what they can change and insurance companies what they have to pay for. Since this will inevitably result in both groups taking losses, they will simply close up shop. This will result in a new health care crisis, at which time the government will swoop in like a false messiah to "fix" the totally unexpected void in health insurance by creating the single payer system, which Obama said was the objective way back in 2007 before he said it wasn't.
All great points. You also forgot to include that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to force everyone to buy health insurance as well as the fact that the majority of US citizens do not want this to pass. If it was a good bill then over the last year, it would've eventually won the popular support - however this bill started out with a small majority (51%-60% or so) of support and the more people find out, the fewer people support it.
Also, Idaho recently passed a bill saying that the state will sue the federal government if this law passes (because it's unconstitutional) and 37 other states have similar bills pending. If they all pass, that's 76% of the states banding together to fight it - and apparently Obama and the Democrats in Congress who are so desperate to force this through are forgetting that 76% of states banding together is more than enough to force through a change to the Constitution, meaning that the states could force through an amendment specifically banning the government from getting involved in health care beyond setting levels for safety regulations for providers.
Even if this bill passes, the fight still isn't over. The American people have voiced their desires loud and clear, even many who voted for Obama are opposed to this bill. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid however are blatantly ignoring the will of the people (the ones who supposedly are controlling the government) and it looks like they're about to start the biggest internal conflict we've had since the Civil War.
Though on other side, the question all Americans should be asking themselves is: do private insurers have better resume???
Yes, they do. Are they perfect? No. Are there improvements that can be made? Yes. However, out of the 2,000 pages of this disastrous bill, only two small things in it are actually improvements from the current system (being able to stay on your parents insurance until you're 26 for college / grad students / graduates looking for a job, and eliminating being denied due to a pre-existing condition). There are many insurance companies and if yours severely displeases you, you can always find another insurance company. However, you can't find another government if government run health care lets you down.
Oh, from your own link, someone who bothered to READ the cited study said "For the time period examined, only 2.7% of large U.S. companies didn’t pay any taxes. It’s pretty misleading to state the number is 66%."
Yup, 97.7% paying taxes really sounds like "close to 0" pay taxes.
I say, instead of cutting corporate taxes, raise them, and use the money to teach people new skills.
Yes, that's it, promote more outsourcing and higher prices for citizens! I'm starting to think I'm the only person on this site who ever took an Economics class (I actually have a degree in Economics too). If there's one sure way to damn our economy and reduce us to a third world country, it's what you just proposed.
That was added to the Statue of Liberty in 1903, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, which is what we base our laws on (at least, we did).
Actually the only corporations that benefit from a surplus of unskilled workers are the menial jobs like Wal-Mart & McDonald's and such. Most jobs require at least some degree of skill beyond being able to talk and move objects.
If we had made it easy for the smart chinese and indians to stay here - then research bases would be here and only manufacturing would move.
Exactly. I'm all for extremely easy immigration for skilled workers. I am however against letting in unskilled people - no, it's not because I think I'm better than them, it's because we already have more than enough poor people that we don't need to be importing any.
Another way to stop outsourcing and actually have IN-sourcing is to drastically cut (possibly even eliminate) corporate taxes. The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (15%-39% for Federal taxes and 0%-12% for State taxes, so potentially a 51% corporate tax rate) and it's a known fact among economists that it's harming the US economy. If we cut corporate taxes so that we were lower than average, then it would provide great incentive not only to keep jobs here but also for foreign companies to move their operations to the US. Combine low corporate taxes with easy immigration for skilled workers and you have a perfect recipe for a booming economy.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest reason tablets have never succeeded more is because they've always been expensive. I've seen some tablets I'd love to own, but they're in the $2,000 - $2,500 range, which is way more than I'll spend on a tablet. Now that we're reaching the point where costs are low enough that they can make decently powered tablets in the $500-$700 range, which is where the typical laptop is (I said laptop, not netbook), I think that they'll sell a lot more.
Go throughout history and you see plenty of innovations that never catch on until a decade or so later when the prices drop significantly to where people don't view buying one as a major investment.
No, I didn't use a sob story. I asked whether you have any compassion or not since you didn't seem to. You could also see it as me pointing out how flawed your generalization was.
No, you used a sob story to try to make it seem like anyone who would hold people responsible for paying for their own treatment is "evil". As I pointed out to you earlier, just because you feel sorry for someone doesn't excuse theft on their behalf. If you want to give them your own money (charity) of your own free will, then that's great! I donate to charities too - however, forcefully taking money from people to give to someone else is theft, plain and simple. Just because the government says it's ok doesn't mean it is (see all the countless unjust laws governments have had, such as slavery, jim crow laws, anti-gay laws, etc). I read a quote once from someone criticisim socialism about 150 years ago who said "If I cannot legally do something, what right do I have to ask someone else (read:the government) to do it on my behalf?"
I never have, and never will, argued against charity. I actually promote it quite a bit. However, there is never an excuse for forcefully taking on persons property (that includes money) for onther persons personal gain.
Government should have whatever functions people through a democratic process decide it should have.
See, there's one pesky problem with the US federal government "having whatever functions people want" - it's called The US Constitution. It specifies the powers of the government, which are quite limited - it then has the 10th Amendment which says that any powers NOT specifically given to the government are given to the states. I never once said that states can't implement socialist health care, because they have the authority to do so. It would still me horribly unjust, but it's pretty easy for people to pack up and move if they dislike it. It's very easy to move from one state to another - it's much harder to move from one country to another, especially since, despite all the freedoms we've lost in the last 20 years, every other country is a worse place to live.
If you think that it is theft when tax dollars being used for anything else than what you personally agree with, you could just as well say that you oppose democracy. And maybe you indeed do.
No, I'm very much for democracy, much more than you (you support tyranny of the majority, which is not the same as democracy). In a democracy, no one has the right to vote away someone else's rights - that means you can't use popular vote to pass a law that says blacks can't vote or people MUST give their own property to someone else. Tyranny of the majority, your view, is that as long as the majority wants it, it's ok - that's not how democracy works.
So if you need to use the services of the police department, you're doing something immoral because the services are paid for by everyone even though not everyone need them.
First, everyone benefits equally from the police - the police are there to capture criminals equally, regardless of where you live or how much money you make, and their presence acts as a deterrent for everyone equally. Secondly, police are paid for with local taxes, meaning that areas that need more police pay more. Then there's also the fact that there's so few police officers per 1,000 citizens that the amount paid per person is very low, which cannot be said for government run health care.
That's the very issue here. What should be done when some people need healthcare more than they can possibly afford no matter what they do? Usually ability to have a high income has an inverse correlation with the need for healthcare.
What should be done? You ask for charity or help from friends / family / religious organization you belong to. You don't steal. Stealing is never justified
Why is your medical condition relevant?
It's relevant because you were using the sob story "some people are just born with medical problems". I was too, but that doesn't mean that anyone else is responsible for you.
If you wish to argue that taxes are theft, I'd like to first know whether your opinion then also is that healthcare is the very worst purpose to spend taxpayer money on.
Taxes are for the necessary functions of government. Any program that goes beyond the necessary function of government (and in the case of the federal government in the US, that's regulating trade, providing for the national defense, running the legal system, and that's pretty much it) that uses tax dollars to pay for it is theft. And yes, healthcare is a pretty poor thing to spend tax dollars on. For one, it's immoral to force anyone to pay for another persons expenses. Next there's the fact that some people use more medical care than others - that means that you have a large portion of the country paying while using little resources while others use a disproportionate amount - that's why insurance companies adjust your rates based on your medical expenses, because those who use more services need to pay more (just like how if you order more food, you pay more money - same with everything else). Then there's the fact that government run healthcare provides a much lower quality of care (read the studies that discuss the unbelievably long wait times or the government denying treatment because it's not cost effective, also, read the more recent articles about how several of the prominent socialist countries are having issues with their medical treatment because despite the massive amount of tax funds spend on medical treatment, it's still not enough and they can't afford to raise taxes any higher).
I haven't said that supporting those makes anyone a bad person and why would I since they're good issues to support?
Government run healthcare runs contrary to freedom, personal responsibility, and property rights. It really is an "either / or" situation - you support one or the other, because they're polar opposites. You saying that you support freedom / personal responsibility / property rights and saying you support government run healthcare is like someone saying that they're a vegan and think it's morally wrong to eat meat, then saying that they're having steak for dinner because it tastes great.
So you have absolutely no compassion for those who are not only born with a medical condition due to which they'll suffer all their lives but that also cannot afford the treatments that would make their lives a little more bearable?
I was born with an incurable disease, so you're going to have to try harder than that. Also, just because you feel sorry for someone doesn't excuse theft.
Are they greedy, if they think that everyone should chip in a little?
It depends on how they want to go about it. If they want to take donations, then no. However if you want to forcefully take peoples money (which is how government run programs work), then yes, it is greedy and wrong.
I'm not religious but if I were, I'd say that they're not the ones going to hell.
Yes, how dare I support freedom, personal responsibility, and property rights. I'm such a horrible person!
Your entire inane ramble here is summed up by "I want someone else to pay my costs for me". You're a lazy, greedy bastard and that's why you support "free" healthcare, because you want everyone else to pay your way.
Ever actually read the document? Surely, you've read the Preamble - the statement of intent that covers everything else in the document? Specifically, the part about "promote the general welfare"? Or, how about the Declaration of Independence, where the framers of the constitution stated that it was self-evident that all mankind has the right to life, as well as the pursuit of happiness?
I have, you haven't. There's a pesky little thing called the 10th Amendment that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I've also bothered to read things from the founding fathers, which is why I also know that Thomas Jefferson said this to explain the "general welfare" clause that people like you want to use to excuse tyranny “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
You have no argument constitutionally or morally. You simply want others to have to pay your bills for you, and for that I say you can go to hell, you greedy bastard.
You did not characterize Fox as the villain, you said "Fox is the figurehead and spokesman for that rabid chicken". I don't care if you bash Fox (just as long as you're willing to bash other news groups when they're horribly biased as well), but you weren't just bashing Fox - the way you worded your argument, you were bashing anyone who disagrees with you.
Oh, I also forgot in my other response - the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Look at pretty much every other western country, and you'll find that health insurance isn't rival nor excludable, because they see an advantage to cheap and readily accessible health care.
Not even going into quality of care issues, look at the tax rates they pay for that - Denmark is a pretty typical European country and their LOWEST tax bracket is TWICE that in the US, then they add the VAT on top of that (which is generally at least twice as high as the highest state sales tax in the US). I'm not debating quality or readily accessible here (there's more than enough evidence to prove that government run health care is lower quality AND less accessible due to long wait times), but you can't try to claim it's "cheap". Just because they don't hand you a bill and take it out of your paycheck before you get it doesn't make it "free" or "cheap". Run the numbers, the "free" health care and "free" education of those countries costs way more in the long run than it'll cost in the US.
Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
First, life expectancy being lower in the US has to do with a different culture, specifically regarding eating and exercise habits. Unless you're suggesting that a government official force you to eat the government approved diet and force you to do government mandated exercises, you're never going to change that element with laws. Secondly, the infant mortality numbers are a lie. Even just a cursory glance at Wikipedia shows that other countries alter their data to decrease their infant mortality rate (if you take the time, you can find better sources for it as well). How do they do this? Things such as if the baby doesn't weigh X pounds and dies, they don't count it as a live birth. If it isn't X inches / cm long and dies, they don't count it. If it's less than 24 hours old when it dies, they don't count it. If it's more than X days premature and dies, they don't count it. In the US if a baby is born alive, even if it's only alive for a minute and is ridiculously tiny and premature, they still count it as a live birth.
The outraged opposition from "Real Americans" to public health care is entirely a manufactured product [alternet.org], supported by those who have interests in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Oh great, a false claim where you say that anyone who disagrees with you is bought off! I disagree with you because I value my rights, believe in upholding the Constitution (the bill is unconstitutional, fyi - check out the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution), and don't want to see my costs go up or my taxes go up to pay for someone else's health treatment. None of those things come from "interests in the insurance or pharmaceutical industries", they come from me having an Economics degree, having read the US Constitution, and having seen (not just in reports / new stories, but first hand from friends / relatives themselves in Europe) that the wonders of government run health care are a myth.
On a personal note, I talk with some friends from Europe on a regular basis about this, and they don't really understand the fuss, or the need for insurance to be involved. One friend from Denmark summed it up by saying "If you're a citizen, you pay taxes and get health care. If you're sick, you go to the doctor, you get treated, the doctor sends the bill to the government. The end".
And they pay out the ass for that "privilege". In the US, federal income tax is between 15% - 35%, with state income tax being on average about 5% - so a US citizen (that pays taxes, the lower income ones don't) pays 20% - 40% in income taxes. They then (depending on state) pay anywhere from 0%-10% on sales tax. In Denmark, income taxes are 38%-59% and then they pay a 25% VAT on everything they buy. If you want to cut your income by 25% just to get "free" insurance, then you really need to retake some math / finance / economics classes.
As opposed to my current situation, where the Family Practitioner that my family has been going to since my son was born (the OB/GYN that delivered him works there) is now suddenly not covered by my insurance company - EVEN THOUGH the insurance company's own website says that certain doctors at the practice participate, and EVEN THOUGH we have previously had coverage for things performed at the doc's place. We got a bill for over $500 for a STATE MANDATED health checkup for my son that was required before he could enroll in Kindergarten - not a drop of it was covered. My employer stepped in and reimbursed me for a portion of it, but told me sadly that they couldn't fight the insurance company and that I'd have to change doctors.
I agree, that sucks, and we should probably pass a law to prevent that. However, changing doctors and complaining about it is like complaining about having to go to a new mechanic - there are others you can go to. Yes, it's a bit of a hassle to take the time to find one, but it's nothing critical.
Oh, I also want to note the
Actually, given that Obama and many other prominent Democrats have said in interviews "this is the first step towards single-payer health care", it is relevant. So saying that their goal of single-payer health care is irrelevant to the debate is like saying that you shouldn't worry about the foundation of a house until the whole house is built.
The argument is essentially: hey, we're going broke trying to provide healthcare and doing it radically worse with fewer covered than any other developed nation Vs. you're a socialist tyrant who wants to destroy our way of live, kill our elderly relatives and force all of our women to have abortions! That's not an argument, it's a reasoned position vs. a rabid chicken.
Wow, distorting things from bias much?
Try "this sounds like a great idea on paper (even though the countries that do it are suffering massive problems due to costs), but we're sure we can make it work" vs. "it's unconstitutional, it violates peoples rights, and it's going to put costs off the chart when our country is already massively in debt".
I love how you start out complaining about people not having a real debate and then end by slandering anyone who disagrees with you by calling them "a rabid chicken".
Bull. I know many people who are low income and have had diabetes for decades and the cost has never been an issue. You're also ignoring the fact that the US already has government insurance programs for: kids, the poor, and the elderly.
It's irrational the way the system now is mostly controlled by employer-based insurance, with no reasonable way for individuals to shop for insurance on their own, or to be able to buy it at reasonable costs when then change jobs.
is just plain false. There are already easy ways to get insurance at reasonable costs, such as going to www.ehealthinsurance.com - that's where I went when I ended up between jobs and needing insurance. It's a myth that insurance is extremely expensive / impossible to get on your own.
The way we work around this is the unpopular part. We put a mandate on everybody that says "alright, since they can't kick you out anymore, you can't game the system: everyone has to be insured"
It's not just unpopular, it's unconstitutional as well.
No it doesn't. They can just raise premiums and pay for some of the more expensive surgeries that they already don't. Remember, we're dealing with percentages here, so the more they spend, the larger their profit is allowed to be. There's plenty of mathematical "magic" they can do to increase their profits.
Like you said, there are a few worthwhile things in the bill. However, the American people would be much better off if they passed those things as individual laws (parents being allowed to have children on their insurance until they're 26, insurance companies can't revoke your insurance retroactively) instead of trying to force through this monstrosity of a bill.
>>if this is going to affect roughly 1/6th of our economy, let's study and get it right.
But it's a step in the right direction (while not perfect or even ideal)
Would you care to give some reasoning as to how it's a step in the right direction?
And by fix it, I personally mean remove more profit motive - remove profits - from the health care industry itself. There is no room for consideration of profit over health care decisions
Then kiss all of those new medicines goodbye. Kiss the innovations in things like pacemakers goodbye. If you cut out any profit from just the costs of treating, then there's no money to innovate and improve treatments. If you cap doctors pay at a low amount, you'll see fewer doctors. I know several doctors and med school is one of the worst (and most expensive) things you can imagine. They tough it out though because they know they'll be well rewarded later - if you start eliminating the incentives for people to become doctors, you start cutting down on the number of doctors because they'll say "I can go into another field and make just as much money, while having a less stressful job and less money in student loans".
Yes, it's a nice sound bite to say "There is no room for consideration of profit over health care decisions", but when you take reality into account, it's actually a bad idea because it harms the very people you're claiming to want to help.
First, it mandates that everyone buy insurance because apparently, 30 million people go without it merely because someone is not making them. Second, it promises that rates will go down, despite the fact that when governments have mandated insurance before (such as states requiring auto insurance), it only goes UP. Third, the only consumer "protection" in the bill entails the government telling providers what they can change and insurance companies what they have to pay for. Since this will inevitably result in both groups taking losses, they will simply close up shop. This will result in a new health care crisis, at which time the government will swoop in like a false messiah to "fix" the totally unexpected void in health insurance by creating the single payer system, which Obama said was the objective way back in 2007 before he said it wasn't.
All great points. You also forgot to include that it's unconstitutional for the federal government to force everyone to buy health insurance as well as the fact that the majority of US citizens do not want this to pass. If it was a good bill then over the last year, it would've eventually won the popular support - however this bill started out with a small majority (51%-60% or so) of support and the more people find out, the fewer people support it.
Also, Idaho recently passed a bill saying that the state will sue the federal government if this law passes (because it's unconstitutional) and 37 other states have similar bills pending. If they all pass, that's 76% of the states banding together to fight it - and apparently Obama and the Democrats in Congress who are so desperate to force this through are forgetting that 76% of states banding together is more than enough to force through a change to the Constitution, meaning that the states could force through an amendment specifically banning the government from getting involved in health care beyond setting levels for safety regulations for providers.
Even if this bill passes, the fight still isn't over. The American people have voiced their desires loud and clear, even many who voted for Obama are opposed to this bill. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid however are blatantly ignoring the will of the people (the ones who supposedly are controlling the government) and it looks like they're about to start the biggest internal conflict we've had since the Civil War.
Though on other side, the question all Americans should be asking themselves is: do private insurers have better resume???
Yes, they do. Are they perfect? No. Are there improvements that can be made? Yes. However, out of the 2,000 pages of this disastrous bill, only two small things in it are actually improvements from the current system (being able to stay on your parents insurance until you're 26 for college / grad students / graduates looking for a job, and eliminating being denied due to a pre-existing condition). There are many insurance companies and if yours severely displeases you, you can always find another insurance company. However, you can't find another government if government run health care lets you down.
Oh, from your own link, someone who bothered to READ the cited study said "For the time period examined, only 2.7% of large U.S. companies didn’t pay any taxes. It’s pretty misleading to state the number is 66%."
Yup, 97.7% paying taxes really sounds like "close to 0" pay taxes.
I say, instead of cutting corporate taxes, raise them, and use the money to teach people new skills.
Yes, that's it, promote more outsourcing and higher prices for citizens! I'm starting to think I'm the only person on this site who ever took an Economics class (I actually have a degree in Economics too). If there's one sure way to damn our economy and reduce us to a third world country, it's what you just proposed.
That was added to the Statue of Liberty in 1903, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, which is what we base our laws on (at least, we did).
Actually the only corporations that benefit from a surplus of unskilled workers are the menial jobs like Wal-Mart & McDonald's and such. Most jobs require at least some degree of skill beyond being able to talk and move objects.
If we had made it easy for the smart chinese and indians to stay here - then research bases would be here and only manufacturing would move.
Exactly. I'm all for extremely easy immigration for skilled workers. I am however against letting in unskilled people - no, it's not because I think I'm better than them, it's because we already have more than enough poor people that we don't need to be importing any.
Another way to stop outsourcing and actually have IN-sourcing is to drastically cut (possibly even eliminate) corporate taxes. The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (15%-39% for Federal taxes and 0%-12% for State taxes, so potentially a 51% corporate tax rate) and it's a known fact among economists that it's harming the US economy. If we cut corporate taxes so that we were lower than average, then it would provide great incentive not only to keep jobs here but also for foreign companies to move their operations to the US. Combine low corporate taxes with easy immigration for skilled workers and you have a perfect recipe for a booming economy.