Liberal view of Government.

[Skipjack]

"A private corporation owned by the residents"? Sounds like another name for "government" to me. Whatever rings your bell.

LOL, I thought the same thing.
Let me guess: and everyone in the community gets to vote on important matter, ROFL...

Diogenes, but health care costs are lower here in Austria, where everyone is insured.
Here people also have the choice between elective treatments and those paid for by the insurance, btw. The elective treatments are about as expensive as they are in the US, maybe more expensive though.
Anyway, normally doctors here make less than they do in the US. They only make more for elective treatments and in private hospitals.
Btw, these private hospitals and elective treatments are sometimes covered by additional private insurance that people get here.
I had that for a while, but during a slow time at work, I cancelled it. Now I cant get it anymore because of my heart attack that I had in May.
So I am "stuck" with the government insurance. This is still better than nothing though. Had I cancelled that as well (which you cant here), I would be deep in debt right now.

[IntLibber]

Not slavery, Diogenes. That would be an association fallacy. After all, there is nothing stopping you from walking away and living off the land except the fact that you like all those little modern convinces that society provides.

I'm not sure what fallacy to call this other than an idiot fallacy. Society doesnt provide you those conveniences, other men and women in PRIVATE industry do. The only things public are when some demagog like yourself gets a majority of fools to vote that they need to enslave a certain industry (and nationalizing or regulating the prices of any industry is enslaving it, no bones about it) to benefit a certain set of constituents.

There is no moral difference between public and private slavery. Calling public slavery 'taxation' and 'regulation' doesnt make it any more moral.

And I do agree that freeloaders are a problem. I just think that if we're going to have a cost, it would be better to have the cost of freeloaders than the human cost of people dieing because they don't have enough money.

Sorry, you told me to exile myself if I dont like your slavery scheme. YOU are the freeloader. Folks like yourself like public slavery because you fear the alternative, which is the natural hand of natural selection weeding you out of the population.

And as for your opinions of me, well, you got two things right. I'm young, and my parents are upper middle class. That said, I've broken bones, destroyed joints, been in a car accident on the highway and suffered a hernia (that really sucked). I also have two friends who suffer from schizophrenia and clinical depression, so I've encountered a good range of medical options in this country. Oh, and I pay my own way through university. Which costs enough to make me part of the working poor. You know, those guys who are freeloading off that government healthcare. You know what they say about assumptions...

I doubt very much that you are paying the full cost. Sounds to me like your freeloading has caused you to be very risk taking and irresponsible and you are happy to have been able to fob off the costs of your irresponsibility on the rest of us. So you've rationalized it. Slaveowners rationalized their slave owning too, they even legally voted it in, it was all constitutional and everything for a good 80 years after the founding of this country. Just because your public slavery is legal and constitutional doesnt make it right.

[JoeOh]

Betruger, I was being at the time a bit-tongue and cheek and even a bit cliche. A minor misstep on my part. I should refine my meaning to be more like "No system is going to be perfect because people are flawed and you're gonna have to accept that."

But I can't really go back in time and fix that statement. And no, I'm not going to cheat by editing" what I posted.

But thanks for almost "agreeing" with me

[IntLibber]

"A private corporation owned by the residents"? Sounds like another name for "government" to me. Whatever rings your bell.

LOL, I thought the same thing.
Let me guess: and everyone in the community gets to vote on important matter, ROFL...

Yup, but no inherent right to shoot you dead and take your property, as is the case with government. They can't legislate beyond the limits of the corporate compact. They cannot strip rights. They cannot charge for services not rendered.

Diogenes, but health care costs are lower here in Austria, where everyone is insured.
Here people also have the choice between elective treatments and those paid for by the insurance, btw. The elective treatments are about as expensive as they are in the US, maybe more expensive though.
Anyway, normally doctors here make less than they do in the US. They only make more for elective treatments and in private hospitals.
Btw, these private hospitals and elective treatments are sometimes covered by additional private insurance that people get here.
I had that for a while, but during a slow time at work, I cancelled it. Now I cant get it anymore because of my heart attack that I had in May.
So I am "stuck" with the government insurance. This is still better than nothing though. Had I cancelled that as well (which you cant here), I would be deep in debt right now.

And here in the US we have medicare/medicaid. There are really no people in the US who don't have health care access who intentionally do not pay for it but are able to. The point of Obamacare is really to shanghai into government taxation all the people who are healthy and earn enough money to pay for their own health care without insurance. This is a trick to make health care more affordable for everyone else via confiscation and redistribution. That is all.

[IntLibber]

Funny thing when it comes to taxes, no one wants to pay the taxes for public services they claim they don't want or need.....

UNTIL their house catches fire in the middle of the night for whatever reason. If you're one of these so-called "rugged individualists" you better have an extra fire truck parked in the garage and a fat cistern of water to boot.

Wait, you don't have an extra fire-truck and a fat tank of water "just in case" the fire happens? Then I suggest you shut the f*** up and pay the small duty out your paychecks.

For a second there you had it. Yes, I and many other people I've met (I did think I was the only one for a while) do in fact do everything on my own, as far as humanly possible. It's fun and it's rewarding.
Do you actually tell people face to face to shut the F up?

Whatever rings your bell.

IOW you concede.

Back at ya. Where I live the fire department is VOLUNTEER, as were most of the fire companies in the US once, when they weren't for-profit departments of the insurance companies. Since then the unions have gotten into the mix and professionalized everything, while the departments were taken over by local governments because it was cheaper for the insurance companies to let government raise the capital via municipal bonds to pay for fire engines. (this is specifically an example of a private industry externalizing its costs onto government, which is deplorable and an example of the oligarchies you get from mercantilism when you let corporate lobbyists legislate an end to the free market.)

See, throw any service the government provides other than national defense and I'll show you a private alternative.

[Skipjack]

Yup, but no inherent right to shoot you dead and take your property, as is the case with government.

The government of Austria has not done that in 65 years. I also dont see anywhere in the US constitution that they have the right to do that.
I do very much see though that noone might have taken his life or property from him without a prior fair process at court.

They can't legislate beyond the limits of the corporate compact. They cannot strip rights. They cannot charge for services not rendered.

But they can just as much sue you if you dont pay your fees, to avoid calling it (private) "taxes". How can a government strip rights from you?
Your rights are defined by your consitution. Sure the government can change the constitution, but then it is not your right anymore.

Hmm, I wonder how a Homeowners Association fits into that picture. From what I heard they pretty much are fascism alive.

[Skipjack]

And here in the US we have medicare/medicaid.

Not everyone is eligible for medicare/medicaid, as you might know.
What about someone who is self employed?

There are really no people in the US who don't have health care access who intentionally do not pay for it but are able to.

Bullshit! I know plenty of people that do have even multiple jobs, but do not have healthcare, because they still can not afford it. May wifes cousin, e.g. She is working as a cashier and at a gas station, but since she did not have a full time job at either, she was not eligible for the company healthcare. She was not able to get medicare/medicaid either.

The point of Obamacare is really to shanghai into government taxation all the people who are healthy and earn enough money to pay for their own health care without insurance.

I do agree that it is a bad idea to make everyone pay for it mandatorily. I do see the problems with that.
It will help prevent a lot of problems though

Anyway among the people that are against it are lawyers. They of course fear that they will loose a lot of customers because people wont be tempted that much anymore to file malpractice suits to recover their health care expenses.

[IntLibber]

And here in the US we have medicare/medicaid.

Not everyone is eligible for medicare/medicaid, as you might know.
What about someone who is self employed?

There are group insurance programs for self employed people through various business groups. National Association of the Self Employed, for instance, has a program, as does the US Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.nase.org/Membership/MembersB ... nefitId=38

Beyond this, its relatively inexpensive to provide yourself and employees with AFLAC coverage. The main problem with most health insurance is it covers stuff that isn't truly necessary, mostly its all cosmetic monkey troop grooming. Most people really just need catastrophic coverage.

Me for instance, I've visited the emergency room three times in the past 20 years. If I'd had to pay for comprehensive health insurance, I'd have paid the insurance company (or the government in taxes) over $60,000, which is about the cost of a kidney transplant. Since I don't want to have to get one, I dont engage in risky activities that would expose me to that risk.

There are really no people in the US who don't have health care access who intentionally do not pay for it but are able to.

Bullshit! I know plenty of people that do have even multiple jobs, but do not have healthcare, because they still can not afford it. May wifes cousin, e.g. She is working as a cashier and at a gas station, but since she did not have a full time job at either, she was not eligible for the company healthcare. She was not able to get medicare/medicaid either.

People in part time jobs, yeah thats an issue, however medicare/medicaid is available if such a person gets into a worker disability situation, i.e. workplace injuries. I do support some rules reforms, like banning preexisting condition restrictions, and IMHO part time workers should get access to coverage but the contribution from the company should be proportionate to the hours worked on average. This would put a lot of people back into full time work since a lot of "part time" workers are really people who get clocked for 32 hours but get stuck with a lot of admin work they aren't allowed to charge on the clock, its a dodge to avoid calling them full time workers that they really are.

Other than that, if they really want coverage, they should serve a tour in the military to earn access to the VA system, like I did. It's helpful when I am unemployed and otherwise can't afford health insurance, and I earned it. As far as I know the military doesnt discriminate against anybody, so theres no excuse for anyone in a working poor situation to not enlist to earn the benefits.

The point of Obamacare is really to shanghai into government taxation all the people who are healthy and earn enough money to pay for their own health care without insurance.

I do agree that it is a bad idea to make everyone pay for it mandatorily. I do see the problems with that.
It will help prevent a lot of problems though

Anyway among the people that are against it are lawyers. They of course fear that they will loose a lot of customers because people wont be tempted that much anymore to file malpractice suits to recover their health care expenses.

[Skipjack]

Since I don't want to have to get one, I dont engage in risky activities that would expose me to that risk.

LOL, neither did I and I ended up with a heart attack at the age of 33.
I was not overweight, did not smoke or drink coffee and was doing exercise 3 times a week.
The only risk factor that I had and that I could not affect was stress.
Self employed, you know.

Anyway, it only takes a one time boom and you are screwed. The thing is that the health insurance companies are dumb for not taking me. I now probably have a lower chance of getting a heart attack than anyone else, due to propers monitoring and preventive medication.

There are group insurance programs for self employed people through various business groups. National Association of the Self Employed, for instance, has a program, as does the US Chamber of Commerce.

Yeah, I was talking about self employed people that might need to take advantage of medicare/medicaid, but cant because they are self employed.
Anyway, they would not provide anything for someone in my situation.
Bad luck, I guess.

People in part time jobs, yeah thats an issue, however medicare/medicaid is available if such a person gets into a worker disability situation.

She got pregnant. Cost, cost, cost. No medicaid or medicare taking care of the that cost.

I do support some rules reforms, like banning preexisting condition restrictions, and IMHO part time workers should get access to coverage.

How does that work? She is working two(!) parttime jobs. So she is working as much as anybody else. However, since she would get insurance through two different companies, with different providers, that each only pay a smaller part? This is silly.

Other than that, if they really want coverage, they should serve a tour in the military to earn access to the VA system, like I did.

Sorry, but that is a very bad option.
First of all the US is in a war somewhere all the time. So this is very risky business.
Second the military will get you more health problems than what you would be dealing with otherwise. Like doing drug tests on their personell and stuff (my wifes other cousin can not get pregnant because of this).
Third, the VA hospitals and the general VA healthcare in the US is shamefully inferior to others. They definitely dont pay for my wifes cousins fertility problems that they most likely caused.
And yeah, I should probably not be knowing about this, but I do, bite me!

[JoeOh]

WTG Slipjack in showing IntLibber (and others) that reality isn't always as simple as it seems.

I tell yea, these people live in ideological la-la-land. Definitely more so than others.

[Helius]

For Car insurance, there is a "high risk" pool for clumsy drivers. A series of car accidents doesn't mean you can't get car insurance. Why not something similar for individuals and "pre-existing" condition situations for health care? It's simple, and it has been done before.

I suspect health insurance companies don't want any unfunded mandates, and user their political leverage to avoid it. It looks like they're going to get to externalize their costs by moving unfunded mandates to the self insured instead.

[TDPerk]

Here is something representative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy200 ... egory2.png

The proportion of expenditures which is legitimate on the part of the feds seems to be about 20%. Of the first seven largest items of the chart, only the last is almost entirely constitutional, the current war effort, that's less than 5%. Much of the defense dept. is constitutional, but no portion of it's funds--or the war funds--which support, for example, the war on drugs are. The interest paid on the debt is not more constitutional than the time integrated portion of past budgets are constitutional. The overwhelming majority of the small slices are not constitutional spending.

If the first four expenditures on that chart are ones you think are constitutional, then there's no point in my continuing anyway--your ignorance is too profound.

I have no interest in looking up the state budgets and compiling them, but since about half of our prison populations exists because of drug convictions, that invalidates that half of their expenditures for law enforcement. All state expenditures predicated on qualifying for unconstitutional federal mandates are also not constitutional, and most professional licensing schemes which exists to secure an income to those professions are also not constitutional*. Neither the Davis nor the Wagner act are constitutional, so spending in obedience to them is not constitutional*, and neither are the state minimum wage laws, or the federal one*.

*These are restraints on trade, which the national constitution prohibits.

If a state constitution mandates a level of education in the young, then expenditures for that purpose are constitutional unless they are entangled with federals funds which are not--which leaves out most of that wanting.

While on closer examinations I can believe 20% of the government expenditures in this country are in fact legal, that is an upper bound.

So tell me JoeOh, why should I STFU and pay taxes quietly for what is at most a 20% legitimate endeavor?

[Skipjack]

For Car insurance, there is a "high risk" pool for clumsy drivers. A series of car accidents doesn't mean you can't get car insurance. Why not something similar for individuals and "pre-existing" condition situations for health care? It's simple, and it has been done before.

Because unlike car drivers, a person is not always (or lets say usually not) responsible for the bad things that happen to them healthwise. If you are driving like a nutcase, then you deserve to pay more. If you had childhood leukemia, or lung cancer caused by the coal plant next door, then you dont.
Or what if you have a preexisting condition because of the said nutcase car driver running into you and thus giving you an artificial hip?

[JoeOh]

I already posted was being tongue-and-cheek more or less when I said that. I also posted that EVERY system that involves people (Governmental, Private, Corporate, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism ect) is going to have abuses/corruption because people are flawed. This corruption can be as simple as "bending the rules" to outright fraud and deception.

This will always be true in some form or another. That's why it's our jobs as citizens to be ever vigilant to minimize these abuses as much as we can. So when I hear someone "blame the gov't" while "praising" the ideological so-called perfection of capitalism it irks my ire and sometimes I get a little hot under the collar.

[Skipjack]

I have no interest in looking up the state budgets and compiling them, but since about half of our prison populations exists because of drug convictions, that invalidates that half of their expenditures for law enforcement.

This argument is of doubtful validity. I know that a lot of people here are believing that legalizing drugs will make everything better. It wont.
Just look at what happened in China during the second half of the 19th century. The British opium brought China almost to its knees. It was completely broken, full of apathic people. It was enough for two wars and the boxer riot (when even the budhist monks could not tolerate it anymore).