Socialized Healthcare

[Winter Woman]

Those numbers are for the top earning bracket and you are close but not there yet. If I remember correctly the top bracket started at $129k but I could be wrong. It was using the highest tax provincial rate and at the moment I can't remember what province it was, I know it wasn't Ont. I'm sure those are numbers before all deductions. The study compared countries using top numbers only to see where they stood against each other that's all.

Does ca have an AMT tax?

i dont know anyone who pays 48.5% in taxes i made about 80k last yr and had a total of 10k taken of my pay cheques for the year and i get about 1k back at tax time unless i put money into a retirement plan which i can right off some of put in 13k last year got 7 back at tax time i still think are taxes are to high but nowhere near 48.5% unless maybe your a MULTI millionaire i dont know any but i know a few millionaires and they dont pay that much either

 

[trailerparkboy]

i know guys making well over 129k an they just dont pay that much but to be fair i live in BC and work in Alberta so i dont know about Ont. As for AMT tax ive never heard off it but im sure we pay it an they call it somthing else haha like i said i agree canadians are over taxed

 

[Rob Roy]

Heh - yeah, I figured you were joking on the Gigantopithecus thing.

There is NO WAY you could fit one in the basement.

I agree with your definition of theft, I just don't think it applies here. Taxes and other social obligations are freely undertaken, if sometimes grudgingly. If you don't want to pay them, fine, but you don't get to play with the others - in society - who all do. Move to Liechenstein or something, I think they maybe don't have income tax there. Start your own taxless society - or move to any of a dozen failed states around the planet - and see how that's working out for other folks.

Likewise your road accident of a definition of the 'common good' - it has nothing to do with rationalizing anything, it simply recognizes a fundamental human trait, our social nature. Its in our DNA, we live and work collaboratively, in groups. That's partly why we have the big brains, to handle the social traffic and all the information other humans share with us, like where to find water and what kind of bugs are good to eat. Like how to communicate, with speech. That's a tool created for the common good.

I think you're maybe setting up a false dichotomy here?

When a person chooses where and from whom they purchase a large bag of Gigantopithecus chow it is "freely undertaken". When a person does something under the threat of force, it cannot be "freely undertaken". Government's and government cheer leaders may wish it wasn't so, but the meaning of words apply to them too. Theft is theft whether you or I or the government do it.

Concerning moving to Lichtenstein, probably not, but thanks for the tip. You say I should start my own taxless society. If your government would not use force against me, and I were allowed to, I can assure you my society would not be a debtor society. Nor would my society wage useless wars or imprison people for self ownership or being industrious and choosing how the fruit of their labor would be directed. I have a feeling my society would be very popular.

"Common good" is achieved when all people have the freedom to make their own choices. unrestrained by the threat of violence. Common good is achieved when people are not forced to labor for another (psst...that's slavery).

Working together is best achieved when the participants are involved of their own free will. Working collaboratively
for the common good? Isn't the common good served when nobody is compelled out of fear to act but they instead act out of responsibility, self interest or charity or all three?

 

[Mindmelted]

Fucking doubt that.
Pussyfied society for pussies huh....
I guess you belive in that co-exist crap also.
What a fucking fantasy world you live in.

 

[The Mastermind]

When actuaries crunch the numbers for insurance companies, they take into consideration the number of individuals that smoke and their lung cancer treatments, the number of individuals that die of obesity, and amongst many other factors. So whether it be for medicare/medicaid or for your own personal health insurance through your company, you will always be paying for other's misfortunes as well. I'm surprised you haven't picked up on that.

And if you haven't been paying attention for the last decade or so, private health enterprises have compromised our health system drastically. Whether it be pharmaceuticals advocating prescribing their drugs in rewards of commission/other goodies for doctors or health insurance companies denying coverage for existing conditions or limiting the amount of certain medical procedures that can be done. Let us take into consideration the fact that pharmaceuticals have absolutely no incentive to find cures for certain ailments. There is no incentive in curing, but rather alleviating symptoms that require daily dosages that you have to pick up monthly. Health insurance companies are publicly traded and don't answer to their customers, but rather shareholders.

Being on a waiting list is far much better than not having a procedure done at all or not being able to afford one. I have family that lives in B.C. and Ontario, and not a single one of them have qualms about their healthcare. And as for individuals coming to America for treatment? I've heard of American individuals being flown across the country for preferential treatment such as the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, John Hopkins, whatever. Want to know why? Cause they're stinking fucking rich. I heavily doubt a single individual on this board will ever muster that kind of money, that includes Rob Roy and Winter Woman.

And the "I never get sick" shit ends pretty quickly, especially as you get older and start to realize what comes with old age. In addition, those "never get sick" individuals do not, by ANY MEANS, represent the populous at all. A large majority of our population gets sick, and they get stuck with high payments simply because health insurance companies and private hospitals care more about profit. We live in a utilitarian society, which means the most for the greatest number.

From killing federal support of stem cell research, to our overpriced healthcare system that thrives on profits, this nation is truly fucked up in the sense of health. I can't believe the amount of economical context that goes into the argument against the healthcare system when I believe the emotional argument triumphs it all. I usually find weed smokers to be benevolent, but I can't believe the amount of pompous, unsympathetic individuals that believe they're actually enslaved.

 

[Winter Woman]

I don't disagree that things need to change, but this healtcare bill is not the answer.

You my friend are a socialist.

When actuaries crunch the numbers for insurance companies, they take into consideration the number of individuals that smoke and their lung cancer treatments, the number of individuals that die of obesity, and amongst many other factors. So whether it be for medicare/medicaid or for your own personal health insurance through your company, you will always be paying for other's misfortunes as well. I'm surprised you haven't picked up on that.

And if you haven't been paying attention for the last decade or so, private health enterprises have compromised our health system drastically. Whether it be pharmaceuticals advocating prescribing their drugs in rewards of commission/other goodies for doctors or health insurance companies denying coverage for existing conditions or limiting the amount of certain medical procedures that can be done. Let us take into consideration the fact that pharmaceuticals have absolutely no incentive to find cures for certain ailments. There is no incentive in curing, but rather alleviating symptoms that require daily dosages that you have to pick up monthly. Health insurance companies are publicly traded and don't answer to their customers, but rather shareholders.

Being on a waiting list is far much better than not having a procedure done at all or not being able to afford one. I have family that lives in B.C. and Ontario, and not a single one of them have qualms about their healthcare. And as for individuals coming to America for treatment? I've heard of American individuals being flown across the country for preferential treatment such as the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, John Hopkins, whatever. Want to know why? Cause they're stinking fucking rich. I heavily doubt a single individual on this board will ever muster that kind of money, that includes Rob Roy and Winter Woman.

And the "I never get sick" shit ends pretty quickly, especially as you get older and start to realize what comes with old age. In addition, those "never get sick" individuals do not, by ANY MEANS, represent the populous at all. A large majority of our population gets sick, and they get stuck with high payments simply because health insurance companies and private hospitals care more about profit. We live in a utilitarian society, which means the most for the greatest number.

From killing federal support of stem cell research, to our overpriced healthcare system that thrives on profits, this nation is truly fucked up in the sense of health. I can't believe the amount of economical context that goes into the argument against the healthcare system when I believe the emotional argument triumphs it all. I usually find weed smokers to be benevolent, but I can't believe the amount of pompous, unsympathetic individuals that believe they're actually enslaved.

 

[undertheice]

We live in a utilitarian society, which means the most for the greatest number.

no, it means that we take the most useful path to our preferred end. our end is not to create a society filled with puling infants permanently attached to the state's apron strings. our end is not the abolition of choice for the sake of the weak. we strive to become a nation where the individual cares for the individual and the state protects our right to do so, not one where we are forced to relinquish our property at the point of a gun. this nation is no single-minded hive or herd of ovine followers, its success is dependent on the ruggedness of its labors and the charity of its wealth. the former is being bred out through nanny-state nonsense, the latter crushed by the socialistic zeal of an increasingly liberal establishment.

I can't believe the amount of economical context that goes into the argument against the healthcare system when I believe the emotional argument triumphs it all. I usually find weed smokers to be benevolent, but I can't believe the amount of pompous, unsympathetic individuals that believe they're actually enslaved.

yes, emotional appeal is all that's needed to kick reason to the curb. all the logic in the world means nothing once one short-sighted bleeding heart starts sobbing for the downtrodden. the fact that handouts and ever tightening restrictions on the liberties of the individual can do nothing but ease today's suffering a wee bit at the cost of tomorrow's freedom is easily ignored as soon as some idiot starts whining, "but it's all for the children". what is pompous is that some fools believe that their illusory moral high ground gives them the right to infringe on the rights of the rest of the country. sympathy is all fine and dandy and the people of this country have proven their empathetic nature through a history of unparalleled charity, but demanding that charity through the threat of violent force is an insidious brand of tyranny and has no place in a free society. we are not yet enslaved. we still maintain some of the dignity and independence that is the birthright of all american citizens. we have begun to lose that birthright because of people like you, who refuse to see where the path of unbridled envy leads.

 

[Rob Roy]

^^^ Once again UndertheIce nails it.

 

[The Mastermind]

I don't disagree that things need to change, but this healtcare bill is not the answer.

You my friend are a socialist.

I'm not sure how you picked that up from just my say on healthcare. I think you're intellectually deficient.

no, it means that we take the most useful path to our preferred end. our end is not to create a society filled with puling infants permanently attached to the state's apron strings. our end is not the abolition of choice for the sake of the weak. we strive to become a nation where the individual cares for the individual and the state protects our right to do so, not one where we are forced to relinquish our property at the point of a gun. this nation is no single-minded hive or herd of ovine followers, its success is dependent on the ruggedness of its labors and the charity of its wealth. the former is being bred out through nanny-state nonsense, the latter crushed by the socialistic zeal of an increasingly liberal establishment.

yes, emotional appeal is all that's needed to kick reason to the curb. all the logic in the world means nothing once one short-sighted bleeding heart starts sobbing for the downtrodden. the fact that handouts and ever tightening restrictions on the liberties of the individual can do nothing but ease today's suffering a wee bit at the cost of tomorrow's freedom is easily ignored as soon as some idiot starts whining, "but it's all for the children". what is pompous is that some fools believe that their illusory moral high ground gives them the right to infringe on the rights of the rest of the country. sympathy is all fine and dandy and the people of this country have proven their empathetic nature through a history of unparalleled charity, but demanding that charity through the threat of violent force is an insidious brand of tyranny and has no place in a free society. we are not yet enslaved. we still maintain some of the dignity and independence that is the birthright of all american citizens. we have begun to lose that birthright because of people like you, who refuse to see where the path of unbridled envy leads.

I always find it funny how you seem to tie in the rights of a human being into the rights of an American citizen. The two are actually mutual. A human being has the right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The rights of an American citizen revolve around our ability to vote for elected individuals, to be able to receive an education, freedom of speech, due process, etc. The fact we all ready have a "socialized" education system and a "socialized" social security system actually goes against how we're supposed to "strive" for individuality and that the state is supposed to protect those rights. Hand in hand with the constitution (which calls for the promotion of the general welfare I might add), democracy is also key to this. The fact a president was elected by a overwhelming majority is proof of that process. The greatest number is tied in with the fact that politicans make an attempt to appease the greatest number so they can get re-elected.

I don't think you understand what logic is. It is about being able to take certain arguments and look at the evidence and come to a certain conclusion. How exactly have your liberties been violated in anyway through healthcare reform? What is silly is when you believe everything that goes against you is an infringement on your rights. That is not always the case. If you can't accept that the democratic process may not go in your favor, then you need to do some real hard thinking.

Btw, you can have universal healthcare and still believe in the other facets of the free-market. Relying solely on the government or private enterprise is ridiculous.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm not sure how you picked that up from just my say on healthcare. I think you're intellectually deficient.



I always find it funny how you seem to tie in the rights of a human being into the rights of an American citizen. The two are actually mutual. A human being has the right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The rights of an American citizen revolve around our ability to vote for elected individuals, to be able to receive an education, freedom of speech, due process, etc. The fact we all ready have a "socialized" education system and a "socialized" social security system actually goes against how we're supposed to "strive" for individuality and that the state is supposed to protect those rights. Hand in hand with the constitution (which calls for the promotion of the general welfare I might add), democracy is also key to this. The fact a president was elected by a overwhelming majority is proof of that process. The greatest number is tied in with the fact that politicans make an attempt to appease the greatest number so they can get re-elected.

I don't think you understand what logic is. It is about being able to take certain arguments and look at the evidence and come to a certain conclusion. How exactly have your liberties been violated in anyway through healthcare reform? What is silly is when you believe everything that goes against you is an infringement on your rights. That is not always the case. If you can't accept that the democratic process may not go in your favor, then you need to do some real hard thinking.

Btw, you can have universal healthcare and still believe in the other facets of the free-market. Relying solely on the government or private enterprise is ridiculous.

Liberties are violated when your freedom to participate or not are taken under the threat of force. The fact we already have something
(you mention socialized education etc.) is not an endorsement or evidence that it is "good".

The democratic process itself can be the infringment on a person's rights and often is.

 

[The Mastermind]

Liberties are violated when your freedom to participate or not are taken under the threat of force. The fact we already have something
(you mention socialized education etc.) is not an endorsement or evidence that it is "good".

According to your definition, democracy is the utmost violator of freedom then. And I agree with your assertion that just because something that is in place that is done in some specific manner (public education, social security, unemployment benefits) should not be a model for absolutely everything else. And I am not applying that universally, but rather to healthcare in this specific argument. With cross-country comparisons and the drop in our health-standings year after year I find it hard for people to not believe that socialized medicine should be given a shot over private care, which has unarguably deteriorated our system to the point where medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy. The evidence that occurs is based off of statistical and economic modeling from both a macroeconomic point of view and that shared through other countries that have universal healthcare.

The democratic process itself can be the infringment on a person's rights and often is.

I completely agree. There are faults within the democratic process, and many other processes whether it be social, political, economical and so forth. The fact that the majority at one time believed that slavery should be tolerated, that blacks, women, and other minorities don't have certain rights, and so forth is an example. I couldn't agree with you more. But to what extent on the issue of socialized medicine has there been such an infringement on your rights that you are so directly and direly affected that your quality of life is compromised?

 

[undertheice]

I always find it funny how you seem to tie in the rights of a human being into the rights of an American citizen. The two are actually mutual.....
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.....

and here i had actually hoped we had added a member with a little intelligence to our little community. it seems you're stuck in that same fantasy world where the rest of the pie in the sky false liberals dwell. i would love to see you take those distinctly american rights you take for granted and try to exercise them in other countries around the globe. how well has freedom of speech served dissidents in iran? do you think your property rights would be respected as the owner of most any large business in venezuela? do you really think your very right to life would be respected on a balmy somalian evening? we should consider ourselves lucky to be citizens of a nation that affords us the protection of those rights and we certainly didn't get here through overbearing government control.

so you want to introduce that old argument that we already have socialized institutions in this country, what's the big deal about one more. well, i'll give you an equally ancient rebuttal to that point by asking you if you think that the residents of pre-ww2 germany might have had similar thoughts as the german war machine co-opted their industry into their grand preparations for expansion. do you think that the first steps toward any totalitarianism must come with some great flourish? more often than not, society changes incrementally. it is seldom the individual issues that matter, but the path they place us on. just how far back would you like to go? the concept of public education seems innocuous enough until those schools become the centers for indoctrinating future generations into the brave new world of comfortable bondage. few would argue that we should all consider our futures and provide for our old age. but when the program to do so becomes a mandatory, state run institution and its funds are plundered for the pet projects of political insiders, we begin to see the folly of allowing the massive bureaucracy of the federal government to control the purse-strings of our retirement. no one would deny that the poor deserve a helping hand in their times of need. the citizens of this country are second to none in their tendency toward charity and we certainly can't fault our government for wanting to add to that worthwhile cause. but when the administration of that government run charity creates a massive welfare-state rife with corruption and abuse, we begin to understand just how incompetent such a bureaucracy can be and to resent the black hole our tax monies fall into.

you can go ahead and believe that our general acceptance of such losing socialistic institutions means we are ripe for a radical shift to the left. considering your ideology, you may be comforted by the domination of both houses of congress and the white house by the current batch of quasi-marxists. though i wouldn't consider slightly over fifty percent of the popular vote to be any grand mandate, i'm sure you might see the bumbling neophyte in the oval office as a sure sign that the days of american conservatism are finally at an end. i'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it would take a total rewrite of the constitution before the government's annexation and over-regulation of such major portions of the private sector could be considered within the bounds of the guiding tenets of this country. a government mandate that demands the people must purchase any product simply because they are citizens of this country must eventually be seen as unconstitutional, no matter how you may wish to twist those words.

democracy is certainly no key. it is mob rule, plain and simple. the will of the majority must never be allowed to override the rights of any minority, even a minority of one. politicians may be dependent on the popular vote and cater to the mob to attain their victories, but their promises and agendas must always be tempered by the most basic laws of the land. if it wasn't so sad it would be humorous, the way you rabid partisans twist the idea of majority rule to suit yourselves. no matter which side you are on, the majority is only important when you are a part of it. you all go crawling back to the protection of the courts and the constitution as soon as the tide turns against you and then try to deny those protections to others as soon as it turns back again.

our biggest problem is that all of you partisan hacks are so blinded by the individual issues that you fail to see the road your feet are being placed upon. just as the religious right fails to recognize the detriment to essential sciences their their blind obedience to scripture is responsible for, so to are the idiots of progressivism blind to the eventual destruction of private enterprise that their actions must bring. i'm sure that you firmly believe these small inroads made by government into the private sector spell no danger for the rest of our relatively free market, but even a brief study of history and human nature would prove you a fool in that belief. the rather trite concept of "the slippery slope" is a very real component of the manner in which societies evolve and climbing back up that slope becomes more difficult the farther you travel. we began this nation as an experiment that traveled the road toward the supremacy of the individual, trying to leave behind the primitive need for the protection of the herd. we accept a certain amount of interference from the state, simply because we know that it is necessary at this point in our growth. the more we demand the parental hand of government to guide us, the slower our progress and the greater the chance of reversing our course. such an experiment is not for the faint of heart and i would suggest that those unwilling to continue the journey find themselves another place and another path.

 

[The Mastermind]

and here i had actually hoped we had added a member with a little intelligence to our little community. it seems you're stuck in that same fantasy world where the rest of the pie in the sky false liberals dwell. i would love to see you take those distinctly american rights you take for granted and try to exercise them in other countries around the globe. how well has freedom of speech served dissidents in iran? do you think your property rights would be respected as the owner of most any large business in venezuela? do you really think your very right to life would be respected on a balmy somalian evening? we should consider ourselves lucky to be citizens of a nation that affords us the protection of those rights and we certainly didn't get here through overbearing government control.

Human rights: the right to do what you want to your body, to live a life of happiness and liberty as long as you don't violate others. The rights of an American citizen granted (I use the word granted because that is what it is): the right to vote, bear arms (challenged a lot), due process, freedom of speech, etc. I am not by any means taking these lightly. And you're right, out government affords certain rights. And we, through the democratic process, have the ability to create new rights for our citizens. That's why I believe we can move towards a right where the American citizen, not the human being in himself, has the right to healthcare through a universal system.

so you want to introduce that old argument that we already have socialized institutions in this country, what's the big deal about one more. well, i'll give you an equally ancient rebuttal to that point by asking you if you think that the residents of pre-ww2 germany might have had similar thoughts as the german war machine co-opted their industry into their grand preparations for expansion. do you think that the first steps toward any totalitarianism must come with some great flourish? more often than not, society changes incrementally. it is seldom the individual issues that matter, but the path they place us on. just how far back would you like to go? the concept of public education seems innocuous enough until those schools become the centers for indoctrinating future generations into the brave new world of comfortable bondage. few would argue that we should all consider our futures and provide for our old age. but when the program to do so becomes a mandatory, state run institution and its funds are plundered for the pet projects of political insiders, we begin to see the folly of allowing the massive bureaucracy of the federal government to control the purse-strings of our retirement. no one would deny that the poor deserve a helping hand in their times of need. the citizens of this country are second to none in their tendency toward charity and we certainly can't fault our government for wanting to add to that worthwhile cause. but when the administration of that government run charity creates a massive welfare-state rife with corruption and abuse, we begin to understand just how incompetent such a bureaucracy can be and to resent the black hole our tax monies fall into.

You're argument is a "slippery slope" one, and about how one thing leads to another. As for "lets just add this one in" is not my prime motivation for why we should have universal healthcare in this country. It is through comparison and economics that I come to the decision. If you haven't figured out that the healthcare industry from pharmaceuticals to insurers to hospitals haven't met the needs of the public, and how they continue to batter the economical stability of our people...then you yourself must be lost. My argument is this: the private industries have not been able to fully recognize and meet the needs of the American public. What is the other alternative? The government. And lets look at countries such as France and the United Kingdom and Canada. Are they in this perpetual society that you believe will arise due to their current standings on many issues? Grow up. And pre-WW2 Germany was a battered and lost country that clung onto the hope of an individual and gave him the power to do whatever the fuck he wanted in promise of returns, which actually did (sadly) occur at the expense of 10s of millions.

I've done plenty of research and written papers regarding the abuse of welfare programs. The numbers are smaller than you make them out to be. And this isn't the same case of charity as you believe. Charity occurs when you receive without the expectation of giving back. Taxes are the source of revenue for the countries that actually go forward with healthcare. In addition, if the projected costs of healthcare are to drop say from $4000 a year for a family of four down to $2500 (using Canadian estimates, but I believe it would be lower considering the size of our population vs. theirs), then isn't that in the best interest of the individual? I agree on your argument that taking out of social security for the use of other projects is inefficient and wrong IMO. But that isn't enough to say this shouldn't be available to others. In addition, do you truthfully believe that the free-market is capable of providing old-age benefits when required? Pensions have disappeared as a result of what happened 2 years ago. The instability of the free-market is enough of an argument for me to accept the inefficiencies that a government program might institute. Really.

you can go ahead and believe that our general acceptance of such losing socialistic institutions means we are ripe for a radical shift to the left. considering your ideology, you may be comforted by the domination of both houses of congress and the white house by the current batch of quasi-marxists. though i wouldn't consider slightly over fifty percent of the popular vote to be any grand mandate, i'm sure you might see the bumbling neophyte in the oval office as a sure sign that the days of american conservatism are finally at an end. i'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it would take a total rewrite of the constitution before the government's annexation and over-regulation of such major portions of the private sector could be considered within the bounds of the guiding tenets of this country. a government mandate that demands the people must purchase any product simply because they are citizens of this country must eventually be seen as unconstitutional, no matter how you may wish to twist those words.

I do not by any means see an end to American conservatism. The right of the Tea Party along with the outcry of conservatives along with the disapproval rating of Obama seems to show that a conservative tendency is coming back. In addition, the upcoming November elections are eerily similar to that of the '94 elections. In addition, there are any statutes in effect that require Americans to buy into something. Car insurance being one of them. Paying income taxes is another. Paying for social security, medicare, and others is up there as well. You seem to liken this with some very extreme violation of your personal rights, when in reality it isn't. And it goes back to what I've said regarding democracy and the fact you may be in a situation when the voice and opinions of others outweigh yours.

democracy is certainly no key. it is mob rule, plain and simple. the will of the majority must never be allowed to override the rights of any minority, even a minority of one. politicians may be dependent on the popular vote and cater to the mob to attain their victories, but their promises and agendas must always be tempered by the most basic laws of the land. if it wasn't so sad it would be humorous, the way you rabid partisans twist the idea of majority rule to suit yourselves. no matter which side you are on, the majority is only important when you are a part of it. you all go crawling back to the protection of the courts and the constitution as soon as the tide turns against you and then try to deny those protections to others as soon as it turns back again.

This goes back to my argument of human rights and American rights. You're infusing what you believe to be your human right to not have to pay into a universal care system as a right that is equivalent to that of an American right. That is incorrect. Rights, at the end of the day, are preferences. Human rights are of the individual while American rights are of the collective. If the collective votes towards supporting universal healthcare or something else, then it is a result of the majority. It isn't always pretty because at sometimes the rights of the minority are so severely crushed (cases such as slavery, ability to vote), but to liken you having to pay for something that is supposed to result in creating a favorable economic conditions for yourself and others is no where near the degree you hold it out to be. It is not the mob rule you make it out to be. Differing opinions do exist, and will continue to do so. And the ability of individuals to come together and voice their opinions is the strong point of this nation and many other industrialized nations. And the fact that the minority or losing side has the ability to approach the courts holds that their voice is not immediately crushed. There have been a number of lawsuits as soon as the healthcare reform bill passed along with law suits against the state of arizona regarding their immigrant bill.

ur biggest problem is that all of you partisan hacks are so blinded by the individual issues that you fail to see the road your feet are being placed upon. just as the religious right fails to recognize the detriment to essential sciences their their blind obedience to scripture is responsible for, so to are the idiots of progressivism blind to the eventual destruction of private enterprise that their actions must bring. i'm sure that you firmly believe these small inroads made by government into the private sector spell no danger for the rest of our relatively free market, but even a brief study of history and human nature would prove you a fool in that belief. the rather trite concept of "the slippery slope" is a very real component of the manner in which societies evolve and climbing back up that slope becomes more difficult the farther you travel. we began this nation as an experiment that traveled the road toward the supremacy of the individual, trying to leave behind the primitive need for the protection of the herd. we accept a certain amount of interference from the state, simply because we know that it is necessary at this point in our growth. the more we demand the parental hand of government to guide us, the slower our progress and the greater the chance of reversing our course. such an experiment is not for the faint of heart and i would suggest that those unwilling to continue the journey find themselves another place and another path.

You seem to be fusing both social and economical matters into one. My argument regarding this issue has been that private enterprise has failed and is no longer in the interest of the people. Rising costs along with restricted access to healthcare and pandering of the insurance industry to limit the amount of healthcare has not done anything. And once again, your argument relies on this "look at history and see how things evolve." Comparing today's modern society with its technological advancements and civil liberties with that of America's yestyear and other great nations that once stood is like comparing apples and oranges. Making the distinction between the two won't work. And honestly? I don't really care how we began this nation. IMO those dead white slave owners didn't get it right the first time and to this day there are individuals whose social liberties are severely repressed. I can't understand why you're so against the evolution of a society on social and economical ideologies to such an extent that you believe totalitarianism and gross human rights violations with occur within our borders.

 

[Rob Roy]

Human rights: the right to do what you want to your body, to live a life of happiness and liberty as long as you don't violate others. The rights of an American citizen granted (I use the word granted because that is what it is): the right to vote, bear arms (challenged a lot), due process, freedom of speech, etc. I am not by any means taking these lightly. And you're right, out government affords certain rights. And we, through the democratic process, have the ability to create new rights for our citizens. That's why I believe we can move towards a right where the American citizen, not the human being in himself, has the right to healthcare through a universal system.



You're argument is a "slippery slope" one, and about how one thing leads to another. As for "lets just add this one in" is not my prime motivation for why we should have universal healthcare in this country. It is through comparison and economics that I come to the decision. If you haven't figured out that the healthcare industry from pharmaceuticals to insurers to hospitals haven't met the needs of the public, and how they continue to batter the economical stability of our people...then you yourself must be lost. My argument is this: the private industries have not been able to fully recognize and meet the needs of the American public. What is the other alternative? The government. And lets look at countries such as France and the United Kingdom and Canada. Are they in this perpetual society that you believe will arise due to their current standings on many issues? Grow up. And pre-WW2 Germany was a battered and lost country that clung onto the hope of an individual and gave him the power to do whatever the fuck he wanted in promise of returns, which actually did (sadly) occur at the expense of 10s of millions.

I've done plenty of research and written papers regarding the abuse of welfare programs. The numbers are smaller than you make them out to be. And this isn't the same case of charity as you believe. Charity occurs when you receive without the expectation of giving back. Taxes are the source of revenue for the countries that actually go forward with healthcare. In addition, if the projected costs of healthcare are to drop say from $4000 a year for a family of four down to $2500 (using Canadian estimates, but I believe it would be lower considering the size of our population vs. theirs), then isn't that in the best interest of the individual? I agree on your argument that taking out of social security for the use of other projects is inefficient and wrong IMO. But that isn't enough to say this shouldn't be available to others. In addition, do you truthfully believe that the free-market is capable of providing old-age benefits when required? Pensions have disappeared as a result of what happened 2 years ago. The instability of the free-market is enough of an argument for me to accept the inefficiencies that a government program might institute. Really.



I do not by any means see an end to American conservatism. The right of the Tea Party along with the outcry of conservatives along with the disapproval rating of Obama seems to show that a conservative tendency is coming back. In addition, the upcoming November elections are eerily similar to that of the '94 elections. In addition, there are any statutes in effect that require Americans to buy into something. Car insurance being one of them. Paying income taxes is another. Paying for social security, medicare, and others is up there as well. You seem to liken this with some very extreme violation of your personal rights, when in reality it isn't. And it goes back to what I've said regarding democracy and the fact you may be in a situation when the voice and opinions of others outweigh yours.



This goes back to my argument of human rights and American rights. You're infusing what you believe to be your human right to not have to pay into a universal care system as a right that is equivalent to that of an American right. That is incorrect. Rights, at the end of the day, are preferences. Human rights are of the individual while American rights are of the collective. If the collective votes towards supporting universal healthcare or something else, then it is a result of the majority. It isn't always pretty because at sometimes the rights of the minority are so severely crushed (cases such as slavery, ability to vote), but to liken you having to pay for something that is supposed to result in creating a favorable economic conditions for yourself and others is no where near the degree you hold it out to be. It is not the mob rule you make it out to be. Differing opinions do exist, and will continue to do so. And the ability of individuals to come together and voice their opinions is the strong point of this nation and many other industrialized nations. And the fact that the minority or losing side has the ability to approach the courts holds that their voice is not immediately crushed. There have been a number of lawsuits as soon as the healthcare reform bill passed along with law suits against the state of arizona regarding their immigrant bill.



You seem to be fusing both social and economical matters into one. My argument regarding this issue has been that private enterprise has failed and is no longer in the interest of the people. Rising costs along with restricted access to healthcare and pandering of the insurance industry to limit the amount of healthcare has not done anything. And once again, your argument relies on this "look at history and see how things evolve." Comparing today's modern society with its technological advancements and civil liberties with that of America's yestyear and other great nations that once stood is like comparing apples and oranges. Making the distinction between the two won't work. And honestly? I don't really care how we began this nation. IMO those dead white slave owners didn't get it right the first time and to this day there are individuals whose social liberties are severely repressed. I can't understand why you're so against the evolution of a society on social and economical ideologies to such an extent that you believe totalitarianism and gross human rights violations with occur within our borders.

The freedom and "right" to enjoy self determination is timeless. You might have a right to healthcare. However, you can't "manufacture" a right to make somebody else do what you or a multitude of "yous" would like or force them to do without swallowing a heavy dose of rationalization pills. Sorry.

 

[medicineman]

Obama care is far from socialized medicine. It is basically a giveaway to the insurance cartel in exchange for lots of campaign financing. What did we the people get? Fucked comes to mind. We have to buy their crappy insurance at any price they set, no price controls at all. Yeah we get to stay insured with pre-existing conditions, and our grown children can stay on our insurance till 26, but no-one said the insurance companies (Pirates all) couldn't raise the rates to compensate for their risks plus a good sized profit. As long as we have for profit medical, only an idiot would call it socialized medicine. So, all you idiots can chime in now.

 

[Rob Roy]

Obama care is far from socialized medicine. It is basically a giveaway to the insurance cartel in exchange for lots of campaign financing. What did we the people get? Fucked comes to mind. We have to buy their crappy insurance at any price they set, no price controls at all. Yeah we get to stay insured with pre-existing conditions, and our grown children can stay on our insurance till 26, but no-one said the insurance companies (Pirates all) couldn't raise the rates to compensate for their risks plus a good sized profit. As long as we have for profit medical, only an idiot would call it socialized medicine. So, all you idiots can chime in now.

In a truly unfettered free market, competition would allow the consumer to choose and would bring lower costs. Government prohibition, licensing and regulation creates the unintended consequences of barriers to entering the market, high insurance cost and loss of consumer choice. Take weed for instance, the street prices are artificially high due to government involvement/prohibition.
If medical choices were unencumbered you would see more options and lower costs. Asking the same entity (government) to "solve" a problem that the same entity had a hand in creating won't work. I won't even bore you with any monetary, banking or federal reserve yammering. Trusting in government to solve problems will lead to disappointment.

 

[sk'mo]

Your system and Englands must not work all that well.

At first it was illegal to have private insurance now you can have it. Why? Because your citizenry didn't like what the government dictated.

You couldn't have private hospitals back then, now you do. Why? Because people weren't being treated in a timely fashion or with good quality care.

Doctors had to work for the government healthcare and they were leaving the country. Why? Because they weren't allowed to practice medicine as they saw fit. Now they are staying and coming back because they can be free to practice medicine how they see fit and work for themselves again.

It is obvious that it didn't work and the citizens wanted better and self-directed care. That is why you now have a true choice. But those that opt out still have to pay for private insurance and for the people who are willing to be government lemmings.

My aunt lives in London, Ont. she is 86 years old, she fell and hurt her back. Her doctor told her that she didn't need an x-ray and told her she was sore because she was old. More than a month later she got an x-ray, she had a cracked vertbrate. He then ordered an MRI and that took 3 months before she got that. It shows she had a ruptured disk!!! She was in pain for over 4 months before they started to treat her.

Plus, don't get breast cancer in Toronto. From the time of first diagnosis to first treatment was about 6 months. I think you need to read your own newspapers and have an open mind to how things really are.

Yes, one of the cons of public care is wait times for elective surgeries. This can become an issue when everyone in the country has healthcare, when no one has to say "I can't afford to go to the doctor". Doctors do leave to practice in the States, not because they aren't allowed to practice as they see fit, but because with twice cost for healthcare, doctors make a lot more money down south. It's hard to compete with a system that is profit driven and can mitigate costs by refusing care.

I don't believe your story about your aunt. If an 86 year old person falls, they get x-rayed. It doesn't take a month to get an x-ray either - That's ridiculous. It could take some time to get an MRI, but I can't see the doctor not treating her at all. Sorry, as an Ontarian who grew up around seniors, this story doesn't hold water for me.

The wait time for breast cancer diagnosis to treatment in Toronto is about a month and a half. Too long, yes, but nowhere near six months. In BC, it's about 3 days.

Public Healthcare isn't perfect, but it ain't bad.

Rob Roy,

Just because a tax or piece of legislation with which you disagree is passed does not equal enslavement or thievery, it simply means you don't get your way.

BTW, the heaviest burdens on healthcare are the elderly and children.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes, one of the cons of public care is wait times for elective surgeries. This can become an issue when everyone in the country has healthcare, when no one has to say "I can't afford to go to the doctor". Doctors do leave to practice in the States, not because they aren't allowed to practice as they see fit, but because with twice cost for healthcare, doctors make a lot more money down south. It's hard to compete with a system that is profit driven and can mitigate costs by refusing care.

I don't believe your story about your aunt. If an 86 year old person falls, they get x-rayed. It doesn't take a month to get an x-ray either - That's ridiculous. It could take some time to get an MRI, but I can't see the doctor not treating her at all. Sorry, as an Ontarian who grew up around seniors, this story doesn't hold water for me.

The wait time for breast cancer diagnosis to treatment in Toronto is about a month and a half. Too long, yes, but nowhere near six months. In BC, it's about 3 days.

Public Healthcare isn't perfect, but it ain't bad.

Rob Roy,

Just because a tax or piece of legislation with which you disagree is passed does not equal enslavement or thievery, it simply means you don't get your way.

BTW, the heaviest burdens on healthcare are the elderly and children.

Okay I'll bite. Could you please define "slavery" and "theft" for me ?

If a person that leaves others alone, is forced to do what another would have them do under the threat of violence, what would you call it? If a person cannot choose how they will spend all of their money. and another entity takes it from them against their will what would you call that? Do word meanings change when we apply the same set of circumstances to government and not to individuals?

I'd like to hear your answers.

 

[sk'mo]

Slavery is forced servitude and a slave is personal property. A slave has no recourse. You on the other hand have the right to challenge your government and work as you please in any manner you see fit. The passing and enforcement of laws by a democratically elected government does not slavery make.

Theft is the taking of any possession without permission or authority. In order for a government to operate, in order for a nation to sustain itself, it must levy taxes to fund its endeavours. The government has the authority (Given by the citizenry.) to do this. Ergo, not theft, whether you like it or not. Now, what these endeavours are and how much money is put toward them is up to you and your willingness to participate in the democratic process... Or at least that's the idea, there is no guarantee that things will go your way. Regardless, taxes aren't theft simply because you don't want to pay them.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Okay I'll bite. Could you please define "slavery" and "theft" for me ?

If a person that leaves others alone, is forced to do what another would have them do under the threat of violence, what would you call it? If a person cannot choose how they will spend all of their money. and another entity takes it from them against their will what would you call that? Do word meanings change when we apply the same set of circumstances to government and not to individuals?

I'd like to hear your answers.

i notice you keep using the term "money" rather than my "collected twigs and berries"
or even "gold"
next time you break out your wallet think about what you are agreeing to each and every time you use "money" by being part of the system you cannot stand back and cry "slavery" its only when you remove yourself from system compleatly that you are able to