Good point, however that's specialized care and they have a very specific mandate. Regardless, not even the loony nuts are proposing government run health facilities (yet), this would be a single payer system more like Medicaid and not government run hospitals.
A model like the VA wouldn't scale. Regardless, being an adult I have my family's best interests at heart and I'm not willing to sacrifice the excellent, at-will care I have now to marginally improve the care of someone else I don't know.
And a government program (for 300 million people, by the way, not some piddling little country of 5-10 million) will have way beyond "huge" overhead, and no profits. And quality will be guaranteed to go down for most current middle-income insured people.
A single payer system is beyond idiocy for America. Our government has proved it is incompetent at running any large medical system. Instead, just open up the roles of medicaid a little wider for those who truly can't get insurance, and try to improve the efficiency of our current system.
So.. "yuh huh" then? That's your argument? And the nitwits around here call that "Insightful". God this place becomes more of a bastion of idiocy every god damned day.
Anyway, socialism is inherently redistributive - that's its core tenet. The means of production and allocation of resources are redistributed "fairly" among the rabble. The US is minimally socialist, the Soviet Union was massively socialist, and most of the rest of the world is somewhere in between.
Interestingly, the US system made us the most powerful economy and nation in the world. Only China's massive population and shit lifestyle/low wages are moving it ahead of us.
Anyway, military spending is not inherently redistributive, in fact if the US government made their own munitions it wouldn't be at all - the benefits of military protection extend to every American. That's why I included "necessarily" and "inherently". Sure, in a corrupt system funds could unethically be paid to private companies unnecessarily and profiteering (and redistribution, to the "fat cats" you hate so much) could occur.
Nothing you say really means anything, and most of your opinions are silly. I know it, someday you will wise up and realize it too.
I get it. You buy the make pretend numbers that we can magically reduce costs by increasing the availability of medical care will decrease overall costs.
You're being silly. Single payer will not lower the deficit, it doesn't even pass the smell test much less any kind of deep thinking.
Our current "free medical care" program(s) are running way above projected costs and are becoming an increasingly large part of our overall spending. Yet you buy the theory (or as I call it, "obvious lie") that single payer for _everyone_ will magically be well run and cheaper?
I'd offer to sell you this bridge I own, but you'd probably fall off it when you went to survey your new piece of property and sue me.
You can't tax something that doesn't exist. "Not purchasing insurance" is not income, work, winnings, a material thing, etc.. Nobody buys the tax argument because it's laughable.
It's a fine, and anyone who pretends it isn't is either stupid or intellectually dishonest.
Republicans loved the idea of a mandate, and Democrats hated it.
Fabrication. Lie. I'm not sure who you think you're fooling, but I seem to recall Democrat control of both houses and the executive branch.
This mandate was in place because without it you might as well go single payer because there will be no more insurance companies. And good luck selling that to the US people.
Wait, you think conservatives should howl anytime a judge rules on..anything? Your point is nonsensical. This was a finding of law - the federal government was found not to have the right to mandate that US citizenship (aka "being alive") require the purchase of something.
Logic.. Like a "tax" on _nothing_? What exactly is the health care fine a tax on?
Since it's a "tax", I assume if I have no income whatsoever, no job, and literally have no tax liability that I wouldn't have to pay if I decide not to get health insurance, right? What exactly is "failure to get health insurance" a tax on?
I know you think this argument is clever. I promise you, however, that it's not. You tax someone on something they earn, buy, create, etc... You "fine" someone for not doing something you want them to do. Any fool can see this is a fine.
Of course they are. You can't force insurers to cover anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions _and_ not have mandated health care. Might as well just make insurance illegal and go single-payer, as insurance companies would be out of business immediately.
I'm sure some would love that, but good luck when you have a Republican President, and full Republican congress with keeping that intact. Democrats would be an endangered species in 2012 politics.
Your sophistry is amusing. Unfortunately, this is a per-person fine independent of any wealth creation, income, or, well, anything else. We people not making ridiculous arguments call that a "fine".
"Hey honey, the police man just decreased everyone's taxes by $500 and left mine alone, he told me, because I was going 77mph in a 65mph zone! Isn't that amazing! He was very clear to point out it was not a fine, but something he called "tax stasis" on every other US citizen and a $500 increase in my "taxes"!.
You're an idiot. The entire bill will be repealed if this doesn't pass. I'll tell you what, when you get the US deficit down to manageable levels let's talk single payer. Until then, it's a bad joke and will never happen.
But keep yucking it up - things will not go as you plan, I promise.
Sigh. That wasn't inserted for the insurance companies, it was inserted because without it the bill is untenable. Might as well just go to single payer, as insurance companies would be out of business within 2 years. Good luck selling that to the American people.
Your post is informative and insightful, and I never would have expected it to appear on SlashDot. Corporatism, you say? Why, I thought corporations were our friends but I now see I am completely wrong!
Right, because the US doesn't have any different geographic or population density constraints compared to other countries, right? And those businesses in other parts of the world are altruistic infrastructure builders while US companies are evil capitalists, right? You make me laugh. At you. Not with you.
Did you know "literally" can now mean "figuratively"? Look it up, and next time you correct someone for saying "It was literally raining cats and dogs", know that you're wrong now.
"Irregardless" - same thing. Now a word.
There was another one that has changed due to common usage over the last few decades that annoyed me recently, but I don't remember what it was.
That same $45/mo gets me 3mbps. It's enough to stream OR do something else, but not really both.
OMG, the huge manatee! You mean you can't stream _and_ do something else? Jesus Christ, and this country dares call itself free while we have travesties of human nature like this? God damn it, I'm pissed.
Do you have a website or something where I can donate money to right this incalculable wrong? I mean holy fuck, here I am sitting comfortably in my office typing this while you are suffering this miserable existence of being unable to stream AND do something else! Fuck, I feel guilty now.
Yeah, I think you guys must have a journalist assassination pact Russia, maybe that's why you get along so well. You let them murder journalists hiding out in your countries with impunity, they leave you alone.
Not going to happen. China is up and coming economically, and war with the US would completely ruin both China and the US. There's no percentage in it, and it would never happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, however that's specialized care and they have a very specific mandate. Regardless, not even the loony nuts are proposing government run health facilities (yet), this would be a single payer system more like Medicaid and not government run hospitals.
A model like the VA wouldn't scale. Regardless, being an adult I have my family's best interests at heart and I'm not willing to sacrifice the excellent, at-will care I have now to marginally improve the care of someone else I don't know.
And a government program (for 300 million people, by the way, not some piddling little country of 5-10 million) will have way beyond "huge" overhead, and no profits. And quality will be guaranteed to go down for most current middle-income insured people.
A single payer system is beyond idiocy for America. Our government has proved it is incompetent at running any large medical system. Instead, just open up the roles of medicaid a little wider for those who truly can't get insurance, and try to improve the efficiency of our current system.
So.. "yuh huh" then? That's your argument? And the nitwits around here call that "Insightful". God this place becomes more of a bastion of idiocy every god damned day.
Anyway, socialism is inherently redistributive - that's its core tenet. The means of production and allocation of resources are redistributed "fairly" among the rabble. The US is minimally socialist, the Soviet Union was massively socialist, and most of the rest of the world is somewhere in between.
Interestingly, the US system made us the most powerful economy and nation in the world. Only China's massive population and shit lifestyle/low wages are moving it ahead of us.
Anyway, military spending is not inherently redistributive, in fact if the US government made their own munitions it wouldn't be at all - the benefits of military protection extend to every American. That's why I included "necessarily" and "inherently". Sure, in a corrupt system funds could unethically be paid to private companies unnecessarily and profiteering (and redistribution, to the "fat cats" you hate so much) could occur.
Nothing you say really means anything, and most of your opinions are silly. I know it, someday you will wise up and realize it too.
I get it. You buy the make pretend numbers that we can magically reduce costs by increasing the availability of medical care will decrease overall costs.
You're being silly. Single payer will not lower the deficit, it doesn't even pass the smell test much less any kind of deep thinking.
Our current "free medical care" program(s) are running way above projected costs and are becoming an increasingly large part of our overall spending. Yet you buy the theory (or as I call it, "obvious lie") that single payer for _everyone_ will magically be well run and cheaper?
I'd offer to sell you this bridge I own, but you'd probably fall off it when you went to survey your new piece of property and sue me.
You can't tax something that doesn't exist. "Not purchasing insurance" is not income, work, winnings, a material thing, etc.. Nobody buys the tax argument because it's laughable.
It's a fine, and anyone who pretends it isn't is either stupid or intellectually dishonest.
Republicans loved the idea of a mandate, and Democrats hated it.
Fabrication. Lie. I'm not sure who you think you're fooling, but I seem to recall Democrat control of both houses and the executive branch.
This mandate was in place because without it you might as well go single payer because there will be no more insurance companies. And good luck selling that to the US people.
Wait, you think conservatives should howl anytime a judge rules on..anything? Your point is nonsensical. This was a finding of law - the federal government was found not to have the right to mandate that US citizenship (aka "being alive") require the purchase of something.
Logic.. Like a "tax" on _nothing_? What exactly is the health care fine a tax on?
Since it's a "tax", I assume if I have no income whatsoever, no job, and literally have no tax liability that I wouldn't have to pay if I decide not to get health insurance, right? What exactly is "failure to get health insurance" a tax on?
They should tax you for being a moron.
I know you think this argument is clever. I promise you, however, that it's not. You tax someone on something they earn, buy, create, etc... You "fine" someone for not doing something you want them to do. Any fool can see this is a fine.
Of course they are. You can't force insurers to cover anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions _and_ not have mandated health care. Might as well just make insurance illegal and go single-payer, as insurance companies would be out of business immediately.
I'm sure some would love that, but good luck when you have a Republican President, and full Republican congress with keeping that intact. Democrats would be an endangered species in 2012 politics.
Yeah, not sure if serious. Hint: see what happens if Congress passes a law legalizing slavery.
Your sophistry is amusing. Unfortunately, this is a per-person fine independent of any wealth creation, income, or, well, anything else. We people not making ridiculous arguments call that a "fine".
"Hey honey, the police man just decreased everyone's taxes by $500 and left mine alone, he told me, because I was going 77mph in a 65mph zone! Isn't that amazing! He was very clear to point out it was not a fine, but something he called "tax stasis" on every other US citizen and a $500 increase in my "taxes"!.
Idiot.
You're an idiot. The entire bill will be repealed if this doesn't pass. I'll tell you what, when you get the US deficit down to manageable levels let's talk single payer. Until then, it's a bad joke and will never happen.
But keep yucking it up - things will not go as you plan, I promise.
Sigh. That wasn't inserted for the insurance companies, it was inserted because without it the bill is untenable. Might as well just go to single payer, as insurance companies would be out of business within 2 years. Good luck selling that to the American people.
Your post is informative and insightful, and I never would have expected it to appear on SlashDot. Corporatism, you say? Why, I thought corporations were our friends but I now see I am completely wrong!
Yes, I'm mocking you.
Some organization or other coming and redefining terms retroactively does not create false advertising.
Right, because the US doesn't have any different geographic or population density constraints compared to other countries, right? And those businesses in other parts of the world are altruistic infrastructure builders while US companies are evil capitalists, right? You make me laugh. At you. Not with you.
Sadly, you're wrong.
Did you know "literally" can now mean "figuratively"? Look it up, and next time you correct someone for saying "It was literally raining cats and dogs", know that you're wrong now.
"Irregardless" - same thing. Now a word.
There was another one that has changed due to common usage over the last few decades that annoyed me recently, but I don't remember what it was.
Business lines should be about reliability and extra features like trunked lines, not about something as basic as having all ports available.
Says who? What are you basing this "should" on?
That same $45/mo gets me 3mbps. It's enough to stream OR do something else, but not really both.
OMG, the huge manatee! You mean you can't stream _and_ do something else? Jesus Christ, and this country dares call itself free while we have travesties of human nature like this? God damn it, I'm pissed.
Do you have a website or something where I can donate money to right this incalculable wrong? I mean holy fuck, here I am sitting comfortably in my office typing this while you are suffering this miserable existence of being unable to stream AND do something else! Fuck, I feel guilty now.
All I heard was a murderous Russian thug having the unmitigated gall to bitch about anything the US does.
Putin is a murderer, nobody gives a shit what that fucking vermin thinks.
Yeah, I think you guys must have a journalist assassination pact Russia, maybe that's why you get along so well. You let them murder journalists hiding out in your countries with impunity, they leave you alone.
If we wanted the opinion of a Canadian, we'd send a few guys up to conquer your nation and then we'd force your opinion out of you.
So until then, shut your irrelevant whore mouth.
Socialism is redistributive, liar. Your sophist attempt to paint defense spending as necessarily or inherently "socialistic" makes me laugh at you.
Not going to happen. China is up and coming economically, and war with the US would completely ruin both China and the US. There's no percentage in it, and it would never happen.