Again, profit cannot be present in a place where the most important thing is to cure people.
If profit isn't present then I think you'll see the quality of the health care system go down. What do you think motivates many people to get into medicine?
We can't have a ME ME ME ME attitude all the time, and live with one another.
Yes we can. Our country was founded on the principles of liberty and self-determination. You have no right to compel me to purchase health insurance if I decide that I could use the money for something else.
Your examples above are nothing more than irrelevant strawmen that have nothing to do with the issue currently under discussion. They might have been valid if we were talking about a single-payer system -- but that's not what's on the table, is it? Instead we are talking about a system that's going to compel you to do business with private interests, regardless of how you feel about them (what about moral and/or religious objections to the way they do business?) or whether or not you feel you are getting value for your money.
Do you want me to list the ways that such a system violates our Constitution?
About a year ago I was in a motorcycle accident. A simple lay-down that resulted in a broken leg. I was taken to Stanford hospital and put in a cast. The cast wasn't holding the bone in place, so they inserted a plate and screws. A complication arose: compartment syndrome. Five surgeries and two weeks later, I went home. Total bill: $290,000. Total amount I paid: $0.
That's a bad example to make to justify mandatory health insurance. Injuries of that nature would have been covered under your motorcycle/automobile policy. In fact if you read your health insurance policy it almost certainly has an exclusion for situations where another insurance company is liable for your injuries.
Only if you invest for the short term. Personally, I invest for the long term. I'm quite sure that my lightbulb investments will prove profitable in 5,000,000,000 years.
What if I don't want to be part of the risk pool? What if I'd rather have the money my employer is going to spend on health insurance in my paycheck instead? The mandate is unpopular specifically because it takes away our freedom of choice.
Besides which, costs won't go down. Costs aren't going up because we don't have everybody in the same risk pool. Costs are going up because we've built a system that requires the involvement of several different layers of bureaucracy (public and private) before a simple bill for an office visit can be paid. Costs won't come down until people realize the absurdity of a system that uses insurance (a product designed to protect against catastrophe) to pay for routine expenses.
Can you imagine a system wherein your car insurance paid for oil changes? What about one where your homeowners insurance paid to shovel your sidewalks in the winter? Do you think that such a system might cost more than paying for those services out of your own pocket?
There's a really good article in The Atlantic that looks at this problem. A problem that has been completely ignored during the debate about health care in DC. Give it a read, it'll be well worth your time.
It's interesting that you complain about a loss of civil liberties and then use drunk driving as an example of something that needs more attention. The war on drunk driving has infringed on many of our civil liberties. In no particular order:
"Implied consent" laws pretend that the 4th and 5th amendments don't exist.
Police roadblocks where you have to account for your origin and destination to the friendly representative of the state are normally something associated with authoritarian regimes. Yet we embrace them for the sake of catching drunks.
People make arguments like "driving is a privilege" to support these policies, thus reducing the citizenry to children that need to be watched over by a benevolent parent.
The 0.08 law ignores the fact that most drunk driving accidents involve BACs of 0.15 or higher. It also pretends that everyone responds the same to alcohol, which isn't the case. One person might suffer no ill effects at 0.08, while another might be falling down drunk. Biology does not respond to hard limits in the same manner as an engineering or legal project.
The Government invents bullshit statistics to support these policies. One of my favorites is the statistic that "nearly half of all fatal accidents involve alcohol". Guess how they arrive at that number? They include accidents where a passenger had alcohol in his or her system.
The logical way that he could have done so would've been an employer mandate
That's only "logical" if you operate in a vacuum and ignore the realities of running a business. Such a mandate would drive many companies out of business in the worst case or force them to lay off workers in the best case. You don't fix unemployment problems by burdening employers with unfunded mandates.
Only if you have no sense of perspective or have never opened a history book. The Soviets took over 90,000 German prisoners at Stalingrad. Only 5,000 returned to Germany after the war was over. You do the math. Then admit that a comparison between the modern day United States and Stalinist Soviet Union is absurd on the face.
Good luck finding 12 American citizens willing to convict a CIA officer of torture when they find out whom he was torturing and the fact that he had legal authorization from DoJ to do so.
Oh, and we executed Japanese commanders for authorizing the waterboarding of POWs during WWII. Can you explain why Bush and Cheney both shouldn't be in front of a firing squad?
Because terrorists that hide behind civilians and refuse to obey the laws of war aren't entitled to the same treatment as soldiers who fight under a flag and officers?
Since you brought up WWII, why don't you do a little research and find out what happened to unlawful combatants who violated the laws of war. Start by researching the German troops that fought behind the line in Allied uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge. When we captured them they were subject to summary execution.
In World War two it was discovered that the best way for the allies to get intel from their prisoners on what the Germans were up to was a steak dinner.
I heard it a different way from a family member who was actually there and served in his division's intelligence unit. He said that the most effective way to get information out of high ranking POWs was to inform them that we'd turn them over to the Soviets if they failed to cooperate with us.
and Obama's administration just threatened to prosecute intelligence agency personnel for BREAKING THE LAW.
Doesn't it seem just a little bit unfair to you to prosecute people whom were relying on legal opinions issued by our own Justice Department advising them that what they were about to do was in fact legal?
It doesn't matter if you make the fine $0.01. Any criminal conviction will still have far reaching effects on your life. Your ability to get a government license (for anything from teaching to concealed carry) may well be affected. Your ability to seek gainful employment may be impaired. Your ability to get bonded for certain occupations may be impaired. The list goes on and on.
No half measures. We need an honest discussion about real legalization.
I don't think replacing the status quo with a system where the cops can seize and destroy property without warrants or due process represents any meaningful improvement.
It wouldn't pass legal muster anyway. If you want the cops to have the authority to seize it then the item in question needs to be illegal. If the item in question is illegal then you've broken the law by possessing it and can be arrested for doing so.
How many people grow tomatoes? They aren't exactly difficult to cultivate but a relatively small percentage of the population can be bothered with it.
Umm, have you ever tried to grow tomatoes? It's one of the hardest foods to grow, in my experience anyway. It's well worth it (I've yet to find a good store bought tomato) but it's a lot harder than strawberries, cucumbers, radishes, lettuce and a host of other foods that you can grow for yourself.
Everyone I speak with agrees that pot should be legalised just like in the Netherlands. That way you can keep much better control over it.
I agree that it should be legalized (pursuit of happiness and all that) but I'm not so sure that I buy the "you can keep much better control over it" line. When I was a kid I had no problems getting my hands on booze or tobacco and both of those products are legal. We always knew which store we could go to that wouldn't card us, which 21+ sibling of a friend would make a straw purchase and whose parents were too lazy to lock up the liquor cabinet.
So no, I don't buy that legalizing pot would make it harder for the kiddies to get their hands on it. The only thing that will do that is parental involvement but I heard that went out of fashion a long time ago and the current trend is to rely on the TV and internet to raise your kids.....
and the McCain campaign picking her/was/ in fact a sop to get the mouth-breathing base excited.
I'm not convinced that is the case. It's common knowledge that McCain really wanted Libermann. He went so far as to ask the state GOP chairs (yes, all 50 of them) if it was allowable under their rules to have a VP candidate from a different party.
When it became apparent that the base would barbecue him if he selected Libermann they made an impulsive decision and went with Palin. There was no grand design to throw a bone at the base.
Yeah, cause it was that hugely liberal president and Congress that overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act that has been the progenitor of all of these stupid policies to follow. Oh wait, you mean it was a Republican president and Republic-controlled House and Senate that passed such policies?
The Senate was controlled by the Democrats when the Patriot Act passed. You may recall that sometime during the summer in 2001 Senator Jim Jeffords left the GOP and decided to caucus with the Democrats. He broke the 50-50 tie that had given the GOP control of the chamber (via Dick Cheney's tie breaking vote) and made Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) the majority leader.
The Democratically controlled Senate then passed the patriot act by a vote of 98-1. Every single Democrat but two voted for it. Feingold voted no and Landrieu didn't vote at all.
Just admit that the Democrats really aren't any better on civil liberties than the GOP.
What's the fourth dimension? Time? Are you suggesting that you have a time traveling boobie machine? Does it need to reach 88 MPH before you can see boobies from years past? Please tell us more;)
Slashdot Mirror
Again, profit cannot be present in a place where the most important thing is to cure people.
If profit isn't present then I think you'll see the quality of the health care system go down. What do you think motivates many people to get into medicine?
We can't have a ME ME ME ME attitude all the time, and live with one another.
Yes we can. Our country was founded on the principles of liberty and self-determination. You have no right to compel me to purchase health insurance if I decide that I could use the money for something else.
Your examples above are nothing more than irrelevant strawmen that have nothing to do with the issue currently under discussion. They might have been valid if we were talking about a single-payer system -- but that's not what's on the table, is it? Instead we are talking about a system that's going to compel you to do business with private interests, regardless of how you feel about them (what about moral and/or religious objections to the way they do business?) or whether or not you feel you are getting value for your money.
Do you want me to list the ways that such a system violates our Constitution?
About a year ago I was in a motorcycle accident. A simple lay-down that resulted in a broken leg. I was taken to Stanford hospital and put in a cast. The cast wasn't holding the bone in place, so they inserted a plate and screws. A complication arose: compartment syndrome. Five surgeries and two weeks later, I went home. Total bill: $290,000. Total amount I paid: $0.
That's a bad example to make to justify mandatory health insurance. Injuries of that nature would have been covered under your motorcycle/automobile policy. In fact if you read your health insurance policy it almost certainly has an exclusion for situations where another insurance company is liable for your injuries.
Sunlight costs lightbulb makers nearly 100 bazillion dollars!
Only if you invest for the short term. Personally, I invest for the long term. I'm quite sure that my lightbulb investments will prove profitable in 5,000,000,000 years.
My girlfriend and wife both agree that woman are terrible drivers, hence I do all the driving on any trip.
That's funny, the last time I was with your wife and girlfriend they did all the driving, if ya know what I mean...... ;)
What if I don't want to be part of the risk pool? What if I'd rather have the money my employer is going to spend on health insurance in my paycheck instead? The mandate is unpopular specifically because it takes away our freedom of choice.
Besides which, costs won't go down. Costs aren't going up because we don't have everybody in the same risk pool. Costs are going up because we've built a system that requires the involvement of several different layers of bureaucracy (public and private) before a simple bill for an office visit can be paid. Costs won't come down until people realize the absurdity of a system that uses insurance (a product designed to protect against catastrophe) to pay for routine expenses.
Can you imagine a system wherein your car insurance paid for oil changes? What about one where your homeowners insurance paid to shovel your sidewalks in the winter? Do you think that such a system might cost more than paying for those services out of your own pocket?
There's a really good article in The Atlantic that looks at this problem. A problem that has been completely ignored during the debate about health care in DC. Give it a read, it'll be well worth your time.
or enforcing drunk driving laws
It's interesting that you complain about a loss of civil liberties and then use drunk driving as an example of something that needs more attention. The war on drunk driving has infringed on many of our civil liberties. In no particular order:
The logical way that he could have done so would've been an employer mandate
That's only "logical" if you operate in a vacuum and ignore the realities of running a business. Such a mandate would drive many companies out of business in the worst case or force them to lay off workers in the best case. You don't fix unemployment problems by burdening employers with unfunded mandates.
Keep on being a prick, and keep wondering why people are pissed at the US....
I don't really care what people think of my country.
Only if you have no sense of perspective or have never opened a history book. The Soviets took over 90,000 German prisoners at Stalingrad. Only 5,000 returned to Germany after the war was over. You do the math. Then admit that a comparison between the modern day United States and Stalinist Soviet Union is absurd on the face.
Or politics?
Good luck finding 12 American citizens willing to convict a CIA officer of torture when they find out whom he was torturing and the fact that he had legal authorization from DoJ to do so.
Oh, and we executed Japanese commanders for authorizing the waterboarding of POWs during WWII. Can you explain why Bush and Cheney both shouldn't be in front of a firing squad?
Because terrorists that hide behind civilians and refuse to obey the laws of war aren't entitled to the same treatment as soldiers who fight under a flag and officers?
Since you brought up WWII, why don't you do a little research and find out what happened to unlawful combatants who violated the laws of war. Start by researching the German troops that fought behind the line in Allied uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge. When we captured them they were subject to summary execution.
In World War two it was discovered that the best way for the allies to get intel from their prisoners on what the Germans were up to was a steak dinner.
I heard it a different way from a family member who was actually there and served in his division's intelligence unit. He said that the most effective way to get information out of high ranking POWs was to inform them that we'd turn them over to the Soviets if they failed to cooperate with us.
and Obama's administration just threatened to prosecute intelligence agency personnel for BREAKING THE LAW.
Doesn't it seem just a little bit unfair to you to prosecute people whom were relying on legal opinions issued by our own Justice Department advising them that what they were about to do was in fact legal?
So 2% of the Democratic Senate Caucus respects our civil liberties. Wow, I feel so much better......
It doesn't matter if you make the fine $0.01. Any criminal conviction will still have far reaching effects on your life. Your ability to get a government license (for anything from teaching to concealed carry) may well be affected. Your ability to seek gainful employment may be impaired. Your ability to get bonded for certain occupations may be impaired. The list goes on and on.
No half measures. We need an honest discussion about real legalization.
It also proves that America doesn't have a monopoly on legal stupidity and that we still export something ;)
I don't think replacing the status quo with a system where the cops can seize and destroy property without warrants or due process represents any meaningful improvement.
It wouldn't pass legal muster anyway. If you want the cops to have the authority to seize it then the item in question needs to be illegal. If the item in question is illegal then you've broken the law by possessing it and can be arrested for doing so.
How many people grow tomatoes? They aren't exactly difficult to cultivate but a relatively small percentage of the population can be bothered with it.
Umm, have you ever tried to grow tomatoes? It's one of the hardest foods to grow, in my experience anyway. It's well worth it (I've yet to find a good store bought tomato) but it's a lot harder than strawberries, cucumbers, radishes, lettuce and a host of other foods that you can grow for yourself.
Cops taking your property and destroying it without due process doesn't strike you as being authoritarian?
Everyone I speak with agrees that pot should be legalised just like in the Netherlands. That way you can keep much better control over it.
I agree that it should be legalized (pursuit of happiness and all that) but I'm not so sure that I buy the "you can keep much better control over it" line. When I was a kid I had no problems getting my hands on booze or tobacco and both of those products are legal. We always knew which store we could go to that wouldn't card us, which 21+ sibling of a friend would make a straw purchase and whose parents were too lazy to lock up the liquor cabinet.
So no, I don't buy that legalizing pot would make it harder for the kiddies to get their hands on it. The only thing that will do that is parental involvement but I heard that went out of fashion a long time ago and the current trend is to rely on the TV and internet to raise your kids.....
and the McCain campaign picking her /was/ in fact a sop to get the mouth-breathing base excited.
I'm not convinced that is the case. It's common knowledge that McCain really wanted Libermann. He went so far as to ask the state GOP chairs (yes, all 50 of them) if it was allowable under their rules to have a VP candidate from a different party.
When it became apparent that the base would barbecue him if he selected Libermann they made an impulsive decision and went with Palin. There was no grand design to throw a bone at the base.
Yeah, cause it was that hugely liberal president and Congress that overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act that has been the progenitor of all of these stupid policies to follow. Oh wait, you mean it was a Republican president and Republic-controlled House and Senate that passed such policies?
The Senate was controlled by the Democrats when the Patriot Act passed. You may recall that sometime during the summer in 2001 Senator Jim Jeffords left the GOP and decided to caucus with the Democrats. He broke the 50-50 tie that had given the GOP control of the chamber (via Dick Cheney's tie breaking vote) and made Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) the majority leader.
The Democratically controlled Senate then passed the patriot act by a vote of 98-1. Every single Democrat but two voted for it. Feingold voted no and Landrieu didn't vote at all.
Just admit that the Democrats really aren't any better on civil liberties than the GOP.
What's the fourth dimension? Time? Are you suggesting that you have a time traveling boobie machine? Does it need to reach 88 MPH before you can see boobies from years past? Please tell us more ;)