Nope, single-payer comes with it's own problems of the removal of choice and individual liberty. Single-payer is only permissible if you aren't compelled to take part in it and that hasn't been the case in any country that has tried it. I understand in Canada that it's even illegal for you to try and pay a Doctor directly for his services rather than take part in the single-payer system. That sort of forced participation makes a mockery of self-determination and freedom of choice.
What we really should be doing is figuring out why we are spending so much money on health care. Make it more affordable and the inability of most people to pay for it will take care of itself. The remaining people can be supported through medicaid and the like. Consider this: The life expectancy at birth in 1960 was 68 years. In that same year we spent 4.7% of the GDP on health care. That number includes all health care spending, public and private. In 2004 the life expectancy at birth was 74 and we were spending around 15-16% of GDP on health care.
One might ask what exactly we are getting for our money. A lousy six years increase of life expectancy for more than three times the relative amount of spending? This isn't sustainable. All you'll accomplish with single-payer is to transfer the eventual bankruptcy from individuals to the government. Health care reform is meaningless if we can't bring these costs down.
Too bad the majority of the people on your side of the political fence aren't as sensible as you are regarding firearms. One of my US Senators (Charles Schumer, generally regarded as liberal/progressive) recently introduced legislation to take away the right of gun ownership from people who have been arrested for drug crimes in the last 5 years.
You'll note I said arrested not convicted. That whole innocent until proven guilty concept is so yesterday.
I wonder how Mr. Schumer would respond if a GOP'er introduced legislation to take the vote away from people who were arrested but never convicted? I mean obviously they must be guilty of something or they wouldn't have been arrested. We can't have criminals like that influencing our national elections. It's a travesty!
Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. His exact quote was "not any of your taxes."
Of course, even if you want to limit it to income taxes I could point out that he violated that pledge when he decided to increase my income taxes if I dare to decide that health insurance is not in my financial interest and opt to go without it.
I'm not railing against it. Just pointing out that it also happens in other sectors of the economy and we don't use it as an excuse for taking away individual liberty. I don't mind that my medical costs are slightly inflated because of people who can't pay. That's the price we pay for living in society. Either way it's not a justification for taking away my right of free association and compelling me to do business with a scum-sucking for-profit insurance company as a condition of American citizenship.
There should be 0% taxes for corporations. Think about it. The only way a corporation can return it's profits to individuals is in the form of salaries, benefits or dividends. Guess what? Those are already taxed. Corporate taxes are nothing more than backdoor taxes on the individuals that work for a corporation, the individuals that own the corporation and the individuals that buy it's products.
It would be much more intellectually honest to just raise the income or dividend tax rates than to tax corporations. Of course if we did that we'd actually have to have a public debate about the merits of said tax increases. Why bother with that when we can just tell the voters that we are going after those evil corporations? Most of them can't be bothered to understand economics deeply enough to realize that those corporate taxes will just be passed along to the consumers of that corporations products, plus it's employees and owners.
You mean to say that some of the people asked for it. You conveniently ignore the fact that some of the people in that country support the current regime. It's effectively a civil war that we've involved ourselves in and it will not end well for us no matter which faction comes out on top.
Do you remember what happened in Iraq with the Sunnis after we toppled "their" man in Baghdad? I'm curious to know why you aren't worried about the same happening in Libya if we manage to topple Gaddafi? Like any politician the man does have his own base of support. Do you think they are going to just roll over and play dead if we manage to depose their leader?
Finland was at best neutral and at worst on the other side during that Cold War.....
Not saying they aren't part of Western Europe in a cultural sense but pointing to the Cold War as evidence of that fact is rather foolhardy given the treaties they made with the Soviet Union and suppression of free speech that went on in that country during the Cold War in order to appease the Soviet Union.
The US Constitution puts international treaty at the same level of importance as itself
Sorry but that's not the case. Common perception though so I won't hold it against you. The Supremacy Clause makes treaties superior to state laws, i.e: South Carolina can't enforce a state law that runs contrary to a treaty ratified by the US Senate. It does not make these treaties equal or superior to the United States Constitution. A treaty that violates the Consitution is unenforceable. There is even a SCOTUS precedent to this effect.
Yes I fucked that one up. At least I finally deserved one of the troll mods. It'd be great irony if it was a liberal that doled out the mod because he thought I was defending GWB.
It's called freedom of association. The ACA takes it away by compelling me to associate with private enterprise (for-profit insurance companies) as a condition of American citizenship.
Your other examples are appropriate here too. Freedom of conscience. I have a moral objection to the way insurance companies do business and do not want to enrich them with the fruits of my labor. Too bad the Federal Government is taking that choice away from me. Freedom of religion comes into play too -- notice how they craved out an exemption for the Amish? Maybe I'll start my own religion. Hell, it worked for L. Ron....
but al Qaeda (pre-9/11) was tiny compared to the Taliban
Irrelevant.
There was no reason for al Qaeda to provide troops for the Taliban because it wouldn't even be noticed.
Except they did provide troops. Arab Al Quada fighters were active on the front lines of the Taliban's engagements with the Northern Alliance for some time before 9/11 and our subsequent intervention.
Anyway, there were better ways to handle it than an invasion of only a portion of the area the Taliban and al Qaeda occupy.
Good luck selling that one to the American people.
You are an idiot. I get that you hate GWB, really I do, but comparing him to a madman that used chemical weapons on his own people shows that you have lost all sense of perspective. Or did I miss the part of GWB's administration where we dropped mustard gas on Vermont because they got uppity?
Our alliance with those Allies only comes into play if they are attacked by a third party. It says nothing about putting American blood and treasure on the line for a country that isn't even part of the alliance. Nice try though.
Ah Vermont, an interesting place of contradictions. Filled with and run by the far-left but it has the most Libertarian-esque gun laws in the United States. Perfectly legal there to buy a handgun, stick it into a holster and walk out of the store with it. No license required for the act of purchasing or carrying. If only the rest of the country was that sensible.
But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you.
No, fuck you. I have the right of free association and you can't fucking compel me to associate with private enterprise no matter how hard you try to twist the commerce clause.
Your logic about the rest of us paying for it is bullshit. The "rest of us" pay for stupidity all the time. My credit card rates go up because other jackasses spend more than they can afford. I was denied a mortgage that I applied for because of a bunch of jackasses I've never met decided it would be a good idea to get mortgages they couldn't afford while a bunch of other jackasses decided to bundle all those doomed mortgages into securities and resell them. I don't see anybody suggesting indentured servitude and/or a repeal of the bankruptcy code to help defray the costs imposed on society by jackasses that borrow more money than they can afford to repay.
You can't use the stupidity of others as an excuse to take away my rights. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.
We destroyed the base of operations for the group that committed mass casualty terrorist attacks against the United States and many of her most important Allies. We liberated the bulk of the Afghan people from one of the most oppressive and backwards regimes in modern history. If you think we weren't going into Afghanistan after 9/11 you are delusional. Three thousand people were dead on our soil. The AUMF passed Congress with one dissenting vote out of 535. If Bush hadn't done what he did he would have been impeached for dereliction of duty.
Now the world is calling, strangely reminiscent of WW2, and you want to do nothing.
Yes, because Libya has invaded several neighboring countries, conquered the better part of a continent and is on the cusp of overthrowing the established international order. It's exactly like WW2.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, single-payer comes with it's own problems of the removal of choice and individual liberty. Single-payer is only permissible if you aren't compelled to take part in it and that hasn't been the case in any country that has tried it. I understand in Canada that it's even illegal for you to try and pay a Doctor directly for his services rather than take part in the single-payer system. That sort of forced participation makes a mockery of self-determination and freedom of choice.
What we really should be doing is figuring out why we are spending so much money on health care. Make it more affordable and the inability of most people to pay for it will take care of itself. The remaining people can be supported through medicaid and the like. Consider this: The life expectancy at birth in 1960 was 68 years. In that same year we spent 4.7% of the GDP on health care. That number includes all health care spending, public and private. In 2004 the life expectancy at birth was 74 and we were spending around 15-16% of GDP on health care.
One might ask what exactly we are getting for our money. A lousy six years increase of life expectancy for more than three times the relative amount of spending? This isn't sustainable. All you'll accomplish with single-payer is to transfer the eventual bankruptcy from individuals to the government. Health care reform is meaningless if we can't bring these costs down.
Too bad the majority of the people on your side of the political fence aren't as sensible as you are regarding firearms. One of my US Senators (Charles Schumer, generally regarded as liberal/progressive) recently introduced legislation to take away the right of gun ownership from people who have been arrested for drug crimes in the last 5 years.
You'll note I said arrested not convicted. That whole innocent until proven guilty concept is so yesterday.
I wonder how Mr. Schumer would respond if a GOP'er introduced legislation to take the vote away from people who were arrested but never convicted? I mean obviously they must be guilty of something or they wouldn't have been arrested. We can't have criminals like that influencing our national elections. It's a travesty!
Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me. His exact quote was "not any of your taxes."
Of course, even if you want to limit it to income taxes I could point out that he violated that pledge when he decided to increase my income taxes if I dare to decide that health insurance is not in my financial interest and opt to go without it.
I'm not railing against it. Just pointing out that it also happens in other sectors of the economy and we don't use it as an excuse for taking away individual liberty. I don't mind that my medical costs are slightly inflated because of people who can't pay. That's the price we pay for living in society. Either way it's not a justification for taking away my right of free association and compelling me to do business with a scum-sucking for-profit insurance company as a condition of American citizenship.
There should be 0% taxes for corporations. Think about it. The only way a corporation can return it's profits to individuals is in the form of salaries, benefits or dividends. Guess what? Those are already taxed. Corporate taxes are nothing more than backdoor taxes on the individuals that work for a corporation, the individuals that own the corporation and the individuals that buy it's products.
It would be much more intellectually honest to just raise the income or dividend tax rates than to tax corporations. Of course if we did that we'd actually have to have a public debate about the merits of said tax increases. Why bother with that when we can just tell the voters that we are going after those evil corporations? Most of them can't be bothered to understand economics deeply enough to realize that those corporate taxes will just be passed along to the consumers of that corporations products, plus it's employees and owners.
You mean to say that some of the people asked for it. You conveniently ignore the fact that some of the people in that country support the current regime. It's effectively a civil war that we've involved ourselves in and it will not end well for us no matter which faction comes out on top.
Do you remember what happened in Iraq with the Sunnis after we toppled "their" man in Baghdad? I'm curious to know why you aren't worried about the same happening in Libya if we manage to topple Gaddafi? Like any politician the man does have his own base of support. Do you think they are going to just roll over and play dead if we manage to depose their leader?
Finland was at best neutral and at worst on the other side during that Cold War.....
Not saying they aren't part of Western Europe in a cultural sense but pointing to the Cold War as evidence of that fact is rather foolhardy given the treaties they made with the Soviet Union and suppression of free speech that went on in that country during the Cold War in order to appease the Soviet Union.
Pointing out that certain figures in the GOP supported the notion at one point in history does not justify it or make it constitutional.
The US Constitution puts international treaty at the same level of importance as itself
Sorry but that's not the case. Common perception though so I won't hold it against you. The Supremacy Clause makes treaties superior to state laws, i.e: South Carolina can't enforce a state law that runs contrary to a treaty ratified by the US Senate. It does not make these treaties equal or superior to the United States Constitution. A treaty that violates the Consitution is unenforceable. There is even a SCOTUS precedent to this effect.
the UN does outrank congress.
Incorrect.
Yes I fucked that one up. At least I finally deserved one of the troll mods. It'd be great irony if it was a liberal that doled out the mod because he thought I was defending GWB.
What part of the word "any" in his statement of "not any of your taxes" are you having a hard time with?
It's called freedom of association. The ACA takes it away by compelling me to associate with private enterprise (for-profit insurance companies) as a condition of American citizenship.
Your other examples are appropriate here too. Freedom of conscience. I have a moral objection to the way insurance companies do business and do not want to enrich them with the fruits of my labor. Too bad the Federal Government is taking that choice away from me. Freedom of religion comes into play too -- notice how they craved out an exemption for the Amish? Maybe I'll start my own religion. Hell, it worked for L. Ron....
We don't know how McCain would have been because he lost the election.
I picture him huffing it up an Afghan mountainside with a 1911 in one hand and the nuclear launch codes in the other.
I wonder which administration is in power now and would have the ability to end TSA's stupidity with a stroke of a pen?
but al Qaeda (pre-9/11) was tiny compared to the Taliban
Irrelevant.
There was no reason for al Qaeda to provide troops for the Taliban because it wouldn't even be noticed.
Except they did provide troops. Arab Al Quada fighters were active on the front lines of the Taliban's engagements with the Northern Alliance for some time before 9/11 and our subsequent intervention.
Anyway, there were better ways to handle it than an invasion of only a portion of the area the Taliban and al Qaeda occupy.
Good luck selling that one to the American people.
You are an idiot. I get that you hate GWB, really I do, but comparing him to a madman that used chemical weapons on his own people shows that you have lost all sense of perspective. Or did I miss the part of GWB's administration where we dropped mustard gas on Vermont because they got uppity?
Our alliance with those Allies only comes into play if they are attacked by a third party. It says nothing about putting American blood and treasure on the line for a country that isn't even part of the alliance. Nice try though.
Ah Vermont, an interesting place of contradictions. Filled with and run by the far-left but it has the most Libertarian-esque gun laws in the United States. Perfectly legal there to buy a handgun, stick it into a holster and walk out of the store with it. No license required for the act of purchasing or carrying. If only the rest of the country was that sensible.
It worked pretty well for the Wiemar Republi..... oh, shit.
But you're concerned about having the "right" to choose to go to an emergency room if you get sick so the rest of us can pay for it. Fuck you.
No, fuck you. I have the right of free association and you can't fucking compel me to associate with private enterprise no matter how hard you try to twist the commerce clause.
Your logic about the rest of us paying for it is bullshit. The "rest of us" pay for stupidity all the time. My credit card rates go up because other jackasses spend more than they can afford. I was denied a mortgage that I applied for because of a bunch of jackasses I've never met decided it would be a good idea to get mortgages they couldn't afford while a bunch of other jackasses decided to bundle all those doomed mortgages into securities and resell them. I don't see anybody suggesting indentured servitude and/or a repeal of the bankruptcy code to help defray the costs imposed on society by jackasses that borrow more money than they can afford to repay.
You can't use the stupidity of others as an excuse to take away my rights. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.
what exactly has being there accomplished?
We destroyed the base of operations for the group that committed mass casualty terrorist attacks against the United States and many of her most important Allies. We liberated the bulk of the Afghan people from one of the most oppressive and backwards regimes in modern history. If you think we weren't going into Afghanistan after 9/11 you are delusional. Three thousand people were dead on our soil. The AUMF passed Congress with one dissenting vote out of 535. If Bush hadn't done what he did he would have been impeached for dereliction of duty.
George W Bush and Saddam Hussein have alot in common.
You are officially no longer worth talking to. Have a nice life.
Now the world is calling, strangely reminiscent of WW2, and you want to do nothing.
Yes, because Libya has invaded several neighboring countries, conquered the better part of a continent and is on the cusp of overthrowing the established international order. It's exactly like WW2.
No, I'd thank them profusely and ask them to hit Albany on their way out ;)
If it were McCain right now we'd already be rounding Arabs up into concentration camps (whoops "internment camps")
I hate to break it to you but the only President that ever did that was a Democrat.