rather than a poor pathetic web, because there's no money to be made, because everyone blocks ads
so go ahead and block ads if you like, but shut up about it. there's no joy in boastfully "advertising" the practice. only a less vibrant web for everyone
the freeloaders don't pay their bills, all the hospitals in the usa are continually teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and the states and feds, with your tax money, are ocntinually having to bail them out. right now, you pay for the freeloaders
with mandated insurance, the freeloaders are outlawed. if you are a freeloader, you are found out, and you are assessed a penalty. furthermore, since everyone is on insurance, premiums drop because the pool now includes the healthy as well. the current pool is only the people who need insurance: the sickly. of course, EVERYONE needs insurance. only a feeling of godlike invulnerability tells you you don't need insurance: anyone can be injured
plenty of people break their arms, without means to pay. is this not reality in your view? what should happen to them? live life with mangled arms?
and the internet is the bounty of society. the companies (actually, the government projects and universities) that created it only exist because society provides the security, the education, the capital, the stability, the infrastructure, the manpower, and everything else necessary for technological progress to happen
oh, i almost forgot: you're a moron. not an ad hominem. just a prudent appraisal of your apparent lack of abilities to reason
its called an anecdote, not an antic-dote. and anecdotes say nothing about legal standards or social status quos
#2:
its called the good samaritan law. you are 100% legally protected to give all the aid you can without fear of being sued
"1. Freedom is the ability to CHOOSE a direction independently, without coercion."
my freedom to listen to my stereo loudly whenever i want exists in tension with my neighbor's freedom to get a good nights sleep. that's a natural limit on my freedom. it's not "coercion"
"2. Totalitarian Government, and Government Malfeasance are the cause of hunger and sickness all over the world."
hunger and sickness is caused by droughts and disease. clouds and viruses don't take orders from totalitarian governments. if there were no totalitarian governments in the world, hunger and sickness would still happen. the point is: there are all sorts of limits on your freedom. not all of them come from the government
if you have no health insurance, and break your arm, you go to the hospital, and they treat you. they send you a bill, you can't pay for it, and the hospital (always on the edge of bankruptcy in this country) bills the states and feds to keep running. then, i pay for that in terms of higher taxes
so ok: my car insurance analogy totally sucks. you win. but then so does your home alarm analogy
all i know is that i pay, in the form of higher taxes, to support constantly bankrupt hospitals, for all the assholes freeloading without health insurance
you don't have the right or freedom to be irresponsible. i don't know why you suddenly start yearning for the exalted ideals of american freedom and hear "battle hymn of the republic" play in your head... when we're simply discussing fiscally irresponsible freeloading assholes
let's put it this way: if the founding fathers were reading this thread, they would be nodding at my words right now, and smacking themselves in the forehead and rolling their eyes at your words. there is NO commentary on what made this country great, there is NO death of something of american ideals, there is NOTHING going on here except simple common sense fiscal responsibility! got it? please pinch yourself out of your propagandized trance. if anything, confusing blind ignorant irresponsible selfishness with rational free choice is the death of this country, which is what opposition to this common sense health bill is doing
you do not choose to enter to it. you are in it by default
if you wish to choose something, choose to leave society
and therefore, stop typing your opinions on the internet (fruits of society) about social policy (about a society you declare your desire not to be a part of)
saying you are not part of society is a fantasy unless you are guru on a mountaintop. and even then, when you break your arm, you go to society's hospital and freeload off of our generous aid
undeniable rock of gibraltar reality: you exist in human society. you derive benefits far in excess of what society asks you to pay. so shut the fuck up and stop trying to be such a lazy selfish freeloader
you'd rather live a life of unenlightened brutal substinence, slave to the fickleness of nature, weather, and random outlaws
and you somehow believe this is better than simply paying a small portion of your earnings and with that, getting all of the bountiful riches of civilization. like the fucking internet you're tapping your brain droppings on right now
i am not trying to insult you dude, but this is simply a balanced, fair, prudent and rational appraisal of the quality of the thoughts you just wrote: you're a fucking moron
yeah, because a philosophy that champions selfishness is a society full of bountiful giving people ready to give their hearts out! pffffffffft
truth is, you need taxes, you need to compel people to give, charity alone doesn't work. because too many people are like you: too blindly ignorant and/ or selfish to see they are part of a society and OWE a contribution for the benefits they receive from society
i swear, every time i argue with this libertarian tea party ignorance i feel like i am talking to scrooge in "a christmas story"
" "At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge", said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir." "Are there no prisons?", asked Scrooge. "Plenty of prisons", said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. "And the Union workhouses?", demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "They are. Still", returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not." "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?", said Scrooge. "Both very busy, sir." "Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course", said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it." "Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude", returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when want is keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?" "Nothing!", Scrooge replied. "You wish to be anonymous?" "I wish to be left alone", said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there." "Many can't go there; and many would rather die." "If they would rather die", said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides--excuse me--I don't know that." "But you might know it", observed the gentleman. "It's not my business", Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!" Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him."
do you understand the simple lessons of a christmas story a kindergartener can perceive? you do? then do you see scrooge is the ultimate archetype of the libertarian/ tea party asshole?
libertarians and tea bagger morons: kindly get a visit from four ghosts or whatever it takes to cure you of your loud, strident ignorance. the rest of us rightfully perceive of and understand the common sense value of the idea of the common good
i swear, this libertarian tea bagger moron ignorance is destroying this country from within with greater virulence than any fascist, communist, or terrorist religious fundamentalist force that has ever fought the usa
your opinion is valid as long as it is logically coherent. currently i don't see that
you understand you are part of a society: good. you understand that you receive benefits from that society: good. but you do not understand, apparently, correct me if i am wrong, that you owe a contribution for receiving those benefits
and when you broke your arm off the grid, and wandered in bleeding to the emergency room 50 miles away, you gratefully accepted the aid of a society you rejected
i do weep for american society too. that so many people are so blindly selfish and irresponsible that they think aggressively defying what is obviously just common sense fiscal policy is somehow being patriotic or american
just admit you have no interest in american society, and leave social policy to those who actually care about american society
after all you are the one championing going off grid!
don't you see the simple logical fallacy in your attitude?:
"i am declaring myself apart from american society in the name of american society!"
and furthermore, you are not arguing about your personal choice, you are angry at the compulsion society places on you, so you are interested in social policy
so: either remain true to your asceticism and refrain from commenting on the policies of a society you do not view yourself to be a part of
or: admit you are a part of society and that society must have moral policies in order to function. one of which is: you need to aid those who are sick or hurt. and, being part of this society, you realize that at times the social policy binds you to its will. accept that as a pact you make in order to continue to receive the overt and subtle benefits from the society you are part of. like: the goddamn internet you are typing your opinions on!
(smacks forehead)
you have a blind spot. you believe you are not bound by certain realities of the world you live in. one of which is the rules of the social creatures called homo sapiens you are a member of. you have a false, conceited way of looking at the world. at the root of your conceits, i see a gigantic narcissist at work. you are part of society. humble yourself to this reality
or don't. and become a true hermit. and stop trying to matter to the policies of a society you choose not to be a part of by commenting about them on the internet!
"I'd rather live in a society that lets people die in the street (and I don't want that at all) than one that demands they pay for health care."
it is not possible for a moral human being or a moral human society to do this (walk by someone dying in the street)
therefore, you've made a choice that is reprehensible: you'd rather be immoral
forcing someone to pay for their healthcare IS FAR LESS FREEDOM DESTROYING than letting them die in the street. you don't have any freedom when you're dead
what you see before you is a forcing, a compelling: to render aid and then demand repayment. you examine this compulsion against someone's will in a vacuum of other choices. but in reality, the other choice is to leave them dead or permanently disfigured, which is far more freedom destroying
so your argument has two logical fallacies:
1. that freedoms exist in a vacuum. in reality, freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms, and your job is to pick the more freedom affirming avenue
2. only society and government impose on your freedom. reality: simple hunger or sickness destroys more of your freedom than a totalitarian government ever could
do you believe in living in a society where hospitals can turn away people because they can't pay?
the only "right" you are referring to is the "right" to freeload. you are saying this out of willful intellectual dishonesty or honest ignorance to reality
if you have no health insurance, and you break your arm, there is no moral society that can deny you care. if you don't have the money to pay for that broken arm (because you "chose" not to have health insurance) then you are impinging on my rights and freedoms by forcing me to pay for your broken arm
this is the imposition on others you are referring to
are you immune to the possibility of breaking your arm? yes or no
can you cure a broken arm by yourself? yes or no
when you eventually receive aid for that broken arm, will you always be in a financial position to be able to afford that care? yes or no
logic, morality, and now legality: yes, mandated health insurance is obvious
there is no choice on the issue. the idea of a choice on the issue is saying you have a right to go without health insurance, get treated when you get a broken arm... and not afford the bill: you want the "choice" to be a freeloader
a nice compound fracture say, there is no way, even if you are macgyver, that you can repair this damage by yourself
if the injury is such that you can no longer care for yourself, you will wind up cold and starving at my doorstep. or perhaps you really do have some sort of loner pride where you would rather die in the woods than ask anyone for help. then the question is: why not simply admit you are part of a community and get your arm repaired to you can continue to do what you want to do?
you will, in your life, with certainty, come to depend upon others to aid you at some point. you are a social creature, homo sapiens. you have language, you have empathy, you exist within a social structure. why deny the obvious?
either you blind to this simple reality, or you are willfully being intellectually dishonest
either way, your argument depends upon the illusion that you are an island. you are part of a community, simply by virtue of having internet access and typing on slashdot: if you truly weren't part of the community, why would care about our policies? and you will need that community's aid at some point. do believe yourself immune from the possibility of breaking your arm?
to imagine, by yourself, that you can always take care of yourself in every possible scenario, is an obvious and simple logical fallacy
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
so if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? is everyone an upper middle class paragon of financial virtue with $200,000 in the bank for unforeseen health problems?
furthermore, does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you live in a society that does that? so what is the "choice" here? there is no choice: you need health insurance
furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance? what happens is hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on the verge of bankruptcy... eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds
in other words: you already pay for all of the uninsured with your taxes!
but now you pay for it in the most common sense direct way
patriotism, as in caring for the health of your nation, the welfare of your fellow man, belief in the common good, as opposed to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness: i don't know why that's "patriotism"
morality, as in standing up and saying that i don't believe in a society where a corporation takes care of its stockholders and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing rates
freedom, from disease and sickness, as opposed to the false "freedom" to choose between paying for your broken arm, or depending upon society to pay for your broken arm because you can't afford it (while you rail about your "right" to "choose" to not have health insurance)
if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you live in a society that does that?
furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance? hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on the verge of bankruptcy, eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds. in other words: you already pay for it, but now you pay for it in the most common sense way
that have been misclassified, and are actually good
the overriding moral challenge facing us is exactly how hard we can financially damage media companies, with the goal of their dissolution and destruction
in punishment for sponsoring onerous copyright laws which impoverish our culture and weaken our commitments to protecting liberty and freedom
the constitution is open to interpretation. your interpretation of it is not the only plausible legal interpretation that exists. legal rulings, in fact, have drifted and contradicted each other over the years owing to this tension. the constitution paints broad concepts that people interpret on their own, and then a few us, as if in a fundamentalist religion, say that their interpretation is the only constitutionally valid one. bullshit. there is NOTHING in the constitution that says universal healthcare is not a valid constitutionally sound concept. if you describe a legal avenue in which it is made it unconstitutional, i will find some other modern governmental practice you hold dear that defies the constitution in the same way, but you make an exception for, because its simply common fucking sense. much like universal healthcare is simply common fucking sense. finally: the world changes, the challenges change, and the constitution's broad important concepts must be adhered to... NOT some minor clause that when creatively expanded upon can maybe block this common sense legislation, simply because you don't agree with it, at first. like the eras surrounding the abolishment slavery: the legal precedents ran fast and furious in either direction. simply put: in a generation or two, the majority of the children and grandchildren of those reading these words, including those who violently oppose universal healthcare, will agree its a no brainer common sense obvious facet of sound society and sound government
#2: you want common sense?
ok: goverment run healthcare is extremely inefficient
ready for some more common sense?
its STILL BETTER THAN THE INEFFICIENCY OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. examined in a vacuum, government run healthcare sucks. examined amongst other possible choices, its simply the LEAST suckiest choice
#3: that this bill will cause coverage to fall is fearmongering. the doctors who threaten to leave medicine are whining much as the democrats who threatened to go to canada when bush was elected in 2004. when the for-profit companies parasitically siphoning off cash, and all the inefficiency that goes with their insertion is finally removed, doctors will make out the same, or even better, under a one payer system. sure the government could mandate doctors get paid little. and doctors, as you suggest, will disappear or suck in quality. so the government needs to mandate good standard of living for doctors. you tell me about the quality of life for doctors in the uk, canada, denmark, etc.
#4: you don't think we're spending enough on healthcare?
ok
well why don't we spend some money on HEALTHCARE. rather than some parasitically inserted companies that siphon off cash, insert inefficiences (paperwork storms worse than govt bureaucracy), work hard to make sure you get LESS healthcare, and are accountable to no one except the almighty buck? govt bloat inefficiency and indifference looks FAR better to me than a corporate entity actively attempting to make sure less goes to my health than i deserve. how does it look to you?
1. what you are describing is what is currently done right now by private insurers. so exactly what is your point?
2. fatty lard ass and his chain smoking and his 42 ounce big gulp soda IS COSTING ME MONEY. so why don't i, through my govt, have the ability to force fatty lard ass to not cost me so much money?
you're worried about the govt telling you to eat the garden burger? why the hell aren't you worried about fatty lard ass costing your health insurance premiums to be so high? and finally, WHY THE FUCK INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION AREN'T YOU CONCERNED FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING HEALTH?
you want to talk about impinging on freedoms? fatty lard ass COSTS ME MONEY, and therefore IMPINGES ON MY FREEDOM
its pretty much a constant problem with people fighting for their freedoms: there are genuine freedoms which hurt no one else, like freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, and then there are "freedoms" which have a solid qunaitifiable real cost on society and on me. so yes: i have a RIGHT to tell you not to smoke because it COSTS me money and therefore LIMITS my freedom. WHO is paying for your healthcare asshole, in ANY healthcare system. and i have a RIGHT to tell you to eat responsibly because IT LIMITS MY FREEDOM
there is no such thing as a freedom or a right to LIMIT OTHER PEOPLE'S FREEDOMS OR RIGHTS. limits on your freedom is not always from your government, its also from your fellow ignorant, selfish citizens, no matter WHAT your government's policy
so, in the name of freedom: fuck you fatty, eat the fucking garden burger, asshole
Slashdot Mirror
you just make one of your virtual host's names the same as the ip address
so when a request comes in as a naked ip address, it always gets routed to the proper virtual host, every single time
just think of the naked ip address as yet another virtual host with its own name (a naked ip)
rather than a poor pathetic web, because there's no money to be made, because everyone blocks ads
so go ahead and block ads if you like, but shut up about it. there's no joy in boastfully "advertising" the practice. only a less vibrant web for everyone
at 2:14 am Eastern Time on August 29th, 1997
when all we could do was imagine quaint toothless beowulf clusters of something
the freeloaders don't pay their bills, all the hospitals in the usa are continually teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and the states and feds, with your tax money, are ocntinually having to bail them out. right now, you pay for the freeloaders
with mandated insurance, the freeloaders are outlawed. if you are a freeloader, you are found out, and you are assessed a penalty. furthermore, since everyone is on insurance, premiums drop because the pool now includes the healthy as well. the current pool is only the people who need insurance: the sickly. of course, EVERYONE needs insurance. only a feeling of godlike invulnerability tells you you don't need insurance: anyone can be injured
plenty of people break their arms, without means to pay. is this not reality in your view? what should happen to them? live life with mangled arms?
and the internet is the bounty of society. the companies (actually, the government projects and universities) that created it only exist because society provides the security, the education, the capital, the stability, the infrastructure, the manpower, and everything else necessary for technological progress to happen
oh, i almost forgot: you're a moron. not an ad hominem. just a prudent appraisal of your apparent lack of abilities to reason
its called an anecdote, not an antic-dote. and anecdotes say nothing about legal standards or social status quos
#2:
its called the good samaritan law. you are 100% legally protected to give all the aid you can without fear of being sued
"1. Freedom is the ability to CHOOSE a direction independently, without coercion."
my freedom to listen to my stereo loudly whenever i want exists in tension with my neighbor's freedom to get a good nights sleep. that's a natural limit on my freedom. it's not "coercion"
"2. Totalitarian Government, and Government Malfeasance are the cause of hunger and sickness all over the world."
hunger and sickness is caused by droughts and disease. clouds and viruses don't take orders from totalitarian governments. if there were no totalitarian governments in the world, hunger and sickness would still happen. the point is: there are all sorts of limits on your freedom. not all of them come from the government
i lose my stuff. you lose nothing
if you have no health insurance, and break your arm, you go to the hospital, and they treat you. they send you a bill, you can't pay for it, and the hospital (always on the edge of bankruptcy in this country) bills the states and feds to keep running. then, i pay for that in terms of higher taxes
so ok: my car insurance analogy totally sucks. you win. but then so does your home alarm analogy
all i know is that i pay, in the form of higher taxes, to support constantly bankrupt hospitals, for all the assholes freeloading without health insurance
you don't have the right or freedom to be irresponsible. i don't know why you suddenly start yearning for the exalted ideals of american freedom and hear "battle hymn of the republic" play in your head... when we're simply discussing fiscally irresponsible freeloading assholes
let's put it this way: if the founding fathers were reading this thread, they would be nodding at my words right now, and smacking themselves in the forehead and rolling their eyes at your words. there is NO commentary on what made this country great, there is NO death of something of american ideals, there is NOTHING going on here except simple common sense fiscal responsibility! got it? please pinch yourself out of your propagandized trance. if anything, confusing blind ignorant irresponsible selfishness with rational free choice is the death of this country, which is what opposition to this common sense health bill is doing
you do not choose to enter to it. you are in it by default
if you wish to choose something, choose to leave society
and therefore, stop typing your opinions on the internet (fruits of society) about social policy (about a society you declare your desire not to be a part of)
saying you are not part of society is a fantasy unless you are guru on a mountaintop. and even then, when you break your arm, you go to society's hospital and freeload off of our generous aid
undeniable rock of gibraltar reality: you exist in human society. you derive benefits far in excess of what society asks you to pay. so shut the fuck up and stop trying to be such a lazy selfish freeloader
you'd rather live a life of unenlightened brutal substinence, slave to the fickleness of nature, weather, and random outlaws
and you somehow believe this is better than simply paying a small portion of your earnings and with that, getting all of the bountiful riches of civilization. like the fucking internet you're tapping your brain droppings on right now
i am not trying to insult you dude, but this is simply a balanced, fair, prudent and rational appraisal of the quality of the thoughts you just wrote: you're a fucking moron
mod parent +6
i love this libertarian cheat:
"and, uh, charity takes care of all the rest"
yeah, because a philosophy that champions selfishness is a society full of bountiful giving people ready to give their hearts out! pffffffffft
truth is, you need taxes, you need to compel people to give, charity alone doesn't work. because too many people are like you: too blindly ignorant and/ or selfish to see they are part of a society and OWE a contribution for the benefits they receive from society
i swear, every time i argue with this libertarian tea party ignorance i feel like i am talking to scrooge in "a christmas story"
do you understand the simple lessons of a christmas story a kindergartener can perceive? you do? then do you see scrooge is the ultimate archetype of the libertarian/ tea party asshole?
libertarians and tea bagger morons: kindly get a visit from four ghosts or whatever it takes to cure you of your loud, strident ignorance. the rest of us rightfully perceive of and understand the common sense value of the idea of the common good
i swear, this libertarian tea bagger moron ignorance is destroying this country from within with greater virulence than any fascist, communist, or terrorist religious fundamentalist force that has ever fought the usa
your opinion is valid as long as it is logically coherent. currently i don't see that
you understand you are part of a society: good. you understand that you receive benefits from that society: good. but you do not understand, apparently, correct me if i am wrong, that you owe a contribution for receiving those benefits
and when you broke your arm off the grid, and wandered in bleeding to the emergency room 50 miles away, you gratefully accepted the aid of a society you rejected
i do weep for american society too. that so many people are so blindly selfish and irresponsible that they think aggressively defying what is obviously just common sense fiscal policy is somehow being patriotic or american
just admit you have no interest in american society, and leave social policy to those who actually care about american society
after all you are the one championing going off grid!
don't you see the simple logical fallacy in your attitude?:
"i am declaring myself apart from american society in the name of american society!"
pfffffffft
logic fail
and furthermore, you are not arguing about your personal choice, you are angry at the compulsion society places on you, so you are interested in social policy
so: either remain true to your asceticism and refrain from commenting on the policies of a society you do not view yourself to be a part of
or: admit you are a part of society and that society must have moral policies in order to function. one of which is: you need to aid those who are sick or hurt. and, being part of this society, you realize that at times the social policy binds you to its will. accept that as a pact you make in order to continue to receive the overt and subtle benefits from the society you are part of. like: the goddamn internet you are typing your opinions on!
(smacks forehead)
you have a blind spot. you believe you are not bound by certain realities of the world you live in. one of which is the rules of the social creatures called homo sapiens you are a member of. you have a false, conceited way of looking at the world. at the root of your conceits, i see a gigantic narcissist at work. you are part of society. humble yourself to this reality
or don't. and become a true hermit. and stop trying to matter to the policies of a society you choose not to be a part of by commenting about them on the internet!
"I'd rather live in a society that lets people die in the street (and I don't want that at all) than one that demands they pay for health care."
it is not possible for a moral human being or a moral human society to do this (walk by someone dying in the street)
therefore, you've made a choice that is reprehensible: you'd rather be immoral
forcing someone to pay for their healthcare IS FAR LESS FREEDOM DESTROYING than letting them die in the street. you don't have any freedom when you're dead
what you see before you is a forcing, a compelling: to render aid and then demand repayment. you examine this compulsion against someone's will in a vacuum of other choices. but in reality, the other choice is to leave them dead or permanently disfigured, which is far more freedom destroying
so your argument has two logical fallacies:
1. that freedoms exist in a vacuum. in reality, freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms, and your job is to pick the more freedom affirming avenue
2. only society and government impose on your freedom. reality: simple hunger or sickness destroys more of your freedom than a totalitarian government ever could
do you believe in living in a society where hospitals can turn away people because they can't pay?
the only "right" you are referring to is the "right" to freeload. you are saying this out of willful intellectual dishonesty or honest ignorance to reality
if you have no health insurance, and you break your arm, there is no moral society that can deny you care. if you don't have the money to pay for that broken arm (because you "chose" not to have health insurance) then you are impinging on my rights and freedoms by forcing me to pay for your broken arm
this is the imposition on others you are referring to
are you immune to the possibility of breaking your arm? yes or no
can you cure a broken arm by yourself? yes or no
when you eventually receive aid for that broken arm, will you always be in a financial position to be able to afford that care? yes or no
logic, morality, and now legality: yes, mandated health insurance is obvious
there is no choice on the issue. the idea of a choice on the issue is saying you have a right to go without health insurance, get treated when you get a broken arm... and not afford the bill: you want the "choice" to be a freeloader
a nice compound fracture say, there is no way, even if you are macgyver, that you can repair this damage by yourself
if the injury is such that you can no longer care for yourself, you will wind up cold and starving at my doorstep. or perhaps you really do have some sort of loner pride where you would rather die in the woods than ask anyone for help. then the question is: why not simply admit you are part of a community and get your arm repaired to you can continue to do what you want to do?
you will, in your life, with certainty, come to depend upon others to aid you at some point. you are a social creature, homo sapiens. you have language, you have empathy, you exist within a social structure. why deny the obvious?
either you blind to this simple reality, or you are willfully being intellectually dishonest
either way, your argument depends upon the illusion that you are an island. you are part of a community, simply by virtue of having internet access and typing on slashdot: if you truly weren't part of the community, why would care about our policies? and you will need that community's aid at some point. do believe yourself immune from the possibility of breaking your arm?
to imagine, by yourself, that you can always take care of yourself in every possible scenario, is an obvious and simple logical fallacy
you understand the legal logic behind requiring people to have car insurance before driving, right?
so if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? is everyone an upper middle class paragon of financial virtue with $200,000 in the bank for unforeseen health problems?
furthermore, does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you live in a society that does that? so what is the "choice" here? there is no choice: you need health insurance
furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance? what happens is hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on the verge of bankruptcy... eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds
in other words: you already pay for all of the uninsured with your taxes!
but now you pay for it in the most common sense direct way
patriotism, as in caring for the health of your nation, the welfare of your fellow man, belief in the common good, as opposed to the prophets of blind ultimately self-defeating selfishness: i don't know why that's "patriotism"
morality, as in standing up and saying that i don't believe in a society where a corporation takes care of its stockholders and denies middle class americans health benefits while gouging them with skyrocketing rates
freedom, from disease and sickness, as opposed to the false "freedom" to choose between paying for your broken arm, or depending upon society to pay for your broken arm because you can't afford it (while you rail about your "right" to "choose" to not have health insurance)
if you understand why you can't drive legally without car insurance, you understand why health insurance must be mandated. even the young and healthy break their arms. then, what happens? does the hospital turn them away for not having cash? can you live in a society that does that?
furthermore, what currently happens if they have no health insurance? hospitals have unpaid bills, and remains eternally on the verge of bankruptcy, eternally needing bailouts from the state and feds. in other words: you already pay for it, but now you pay for it in the most common sense way
that have been misclassified, and are actually good
the overriding moral challenge facing us is exactly how hard we can financially damage media companies, with the goal of their dissolution and destruction
in punishment for sponsoring onerous copyright laws which impoverish our culture and weaken our commitments to protecting liberty and freedom
fuck you viacom
we will pirate you all to death
death to ip law
the innumerate are numerous
the constitution is open to interpretation. your interpretation of it is not the only plausible legal interpretation that exists. legal rulings, in fact, have drifted and contradicted each other over the years owing to this tension. the constitution paints broad concepts that people interpret on their own, and then a few us, as if in a fundamentalist religion, say that their interpretation is the only constitutionally valid one. bullshit. there is NOTHING in the constitution that says universal healthcare is not a valid constitutionally sound concept. if you describe a legal avenue in which it is made it unconstitutional, i will find some other modern governmental practice you hold dear that defies the constitution in the same way, but you make an exception for, because its simply common fucking sense. much like universal healthcare is simply common fucking sense. finally: the world changes, the challenges change, and the constitution's broad important concepts must be adhered to... NOT some minor clause that when creatively expanded upon can maybe block this common sense legislation, simply because you don't agree with it, at first. like the eras surrounding the abolishment slavery: the legal precedents ran fast and furious in either direction. simply put: in a generation or two, the majority of the children and grandchildren of those reading these words, including those who violently oppose universal healthcare, will agree its a no brainer common sense obvious facet of sound society and sound government
#2: you want common sense?
ok: goverment run healthcare is extremely inefficient
ready for some more common sense?
its STILL BETTER THAN THE INEFFICIENCY OF WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. examined in a vacuum, government run healthcare sucks. examined amongst other possible choices, its simply the LEAST suckiest choice
#3: that this bill will cause coverage to fall is fearmongering. the doctors who threaten to leave medicine are whining much as the democrats who threatened to go to canada when bush was elected in 2004. when the for-profit companies parasitically siphoning off cash, and all the inefficiency that goes with their insertion is finally removed, doctors will make out the same, or even better, under a one payer system. sure the government could mandate doctors get paid little. and doctors, as you suggest, will disappear or suck in quality. so the government needs to mandate good standard of living for doctors. you tell me about the quality of life for doctors in the uk, canada, denmark, etc.
#4: you don't think we're spending enough on healthcare?
ok
well why don't we spend some money on HEALTHCARE. rather than some parasitically inserted companies that siphon off cash, insert inefficiences (paperwork storms worse than govt bureaucracy), work hard to make sure you get LESS healthcare, and are accountable to no one except the almighty buck? govt bloat inefficiency and indifference looks FAR better to me than a corporate entity actively attempting to make sure less goes to my health than i deserve. how does it look to you?
1. what you are describing is what is currently done right now by private insurers. so exactly what is your point?
2. fatty lard ass and his chain smoking and his 42 ounce big gulp soda IS COSTING ME MONEY. so why don't i, through my govt, have the ability to force fatty lard ass to not cost me so much money?
you're worried about the govt telling you to eat the garden burger? why the hell aren't you worried about fatty lard ass costing your health insurance premiums to be so high? and finally, WHY THE FUCK INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION AREN'T YOU CONCERNED FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING HEALTH?
you want to talk about impinging on freedoms? fatty lard ass COSTS ME MONEY, and therefore IMPINGES ON MY FREEDOM
its pretty much a constant problem with people fighting for their freedoms: there are genuine freedoms which hurt no one else, like freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, and then there are "freedoms" which have a solid qunaitifiable real cost on society and on me. so yes: i have a RIGHT to tell you not to smoke because it COSTS me money and therefore LIMITS my freedom. WHO is paying for your healthcare asshole, in ANY healthcare system. and i have a RIGHT to tell you to eat responsibly because IT LIMITS MY FREEDOM
there is no such thing as a freedom or a right to LIMIT OTHER PEOPLE'S FREEDOMS OR RIGHTS. limits on your freedom is not always from your government, its also from your fellow ignorant, selfish citizens, no matter WHAT your government's policy
so, in the name of freedom: fuck you fatty, eat the fucking garden burger, asshole