Forcing people to buy health insurance

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 26, 2010, 01:42:00 AM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 26, 2010, 01:37:59 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 26, 2010, 01:22:47 AM

I just don't get what the problem is with taking rich people's money and using it to help poor people.

Key word there is "taking."  If the rich people didn't 'give' the money, then it's stealing.  Plain and simple.

I have no fear of socialism.  It just won't work on an American scale.  It will lead participants to fail behind economically in the long term.

How is it? How is tax not stealing then?

Great question!  I think that tax is stealing!  If tax was voluntary, then people a) probably wouldn't pay it; b) property and assests wouldn't be seized for not paying it, and people wouldn't be jailed for not paying it.

How are the roads around you? Existent? Oh ok.

I agree, but that movement came after the founding, the right is now trying to re write history in Texas by removing the ideas of Jefferson and Madison, because it does not support their view of the founding of the U.S.

Under God, and In God we Trust were not incorporated into our government until much later.  They are unconstitutional without a doubt, and dangerous too. 

I see your point and yes it is extremely dangerous to have any kind of history being rewritten let alone constitutional history. This is in part is a direct consequence of not upholding the separation of church and state, this is where it leads and of course the funding of abortion had to be removed from Obama's insurance policies as part of the changes to get it through. That kind of influence from religious lobbyists would never get a hearing in British politics and we have very strict rules on funding of political parties too.

As an outsider looking in, I would go as far to say that the Christian right movement in America is as dangerous as fundamentalist Islam in it's threat to democracy and just basic human rights. When I see stories of Christian groups demanding the death penalty for homosexuals it horrifies me. I expect that from the middle east, not some parts of America. But more serious than that is are the moves to get creationism taught in schools over real science. It's just religious fascism and has no place in politics or the classroom. Again even church schools in the UK have to follow the national curriculum. We just would never let religion get any kind of foothold in law like that.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 26, 2010, 01:46:49 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 26, 2010, 01:42:00 AM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 26, 2010, 01:37:59 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 26, 2010, 01:22:47 AM

I just don't get what the problem is with taking rich people's money and using it to help poor people.

Key word there is "taking."  If the rich people didn't 'give' the money, then it's stealing.  Plain and simple.

I have no fear of socialism.  It just won't work on an American scale.  It will lead participants to fail behind economically in the long term.

How is it? How is tax not stealing then?

Great question!  I think that tax is stealing!  If tax was voluntary, then people a) probably wouldn't pay it; b) property and assests wouldn't be seized for not paying it, and people wouldn't be jailed for not paying it.

How are the roads around you? Existent? Oh ok.

Yeah I happen to like public libraries, police department, fire department, an attorney general who will prosecute anybody who wrongs me, etc.  You know, those evil socialist things my taxes pay for.

Reading the constitution is a waste of time.

Why is that?

When I see stories of Christian groups demanding the death penalty for homosexuals it horrifies me. I expect that from the middle east, not some parts of America.

Citation please.

It's a story that came to the fore when Uganda was seeking to criminalise Homosexuality

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/02/if-uganda-executes-gays-will-american-christians-be-complicit/

Those three particular religious american activists are committed full time to lobbying any senator that will listen on criminalising homosexuality (with death penalty)...and they are not just fanatic individuals with no real support behind them. The reperesent an extreme and sizeable enough religious lobby. Need to be watched carefully.

On a further note I don't think for any minute that we'll see homosexuality recriminalised in the US thankfully. But it does matter if people are encouraged to have hateful views towards people. That can be just as damaging to a culture as an unjust law and punishment.

I see. You confused Uganda with the US.  

I see. You confused Uganda with the US.  

Try this then:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Views_on_homosexuality

The group maintains that God hates gays above all other kinds of "sinners"[46] and that homosexuality should be a capital crime.[47]

No at all. My point is that it's a view held by some American religious Christian activists which is very clear if you read the article properly and research the three activists named.

Also there are many articles online written by AMERICAN pastors that argue for the death penalty for homosexuality. That viewpoint is alive and published in some american religious thinking.

example;

http://www.voy.com/28938/5.html

But I try to give those writings the benefit of the doubt as the rantings of an isolated pastor.

What is clear though is that some american religious right wings bodies are infiltrating parts of Africa to promote extreme attitudes.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on March 26, 2010, 11:03:50 AM

I see. You confused Uganda with the US.  

Try this then:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Views_on_homosexuality

Quote

The group maintains that God hates gays above all other kinds of "sinners"[46] and that homosexuality should be a capital crime.[47]

Thank you marcus.

In my opinion these people have no right to call themselves Christians at all. They are fascists, full of vile hate. There are fortunately many decent Christians out there who reject the purile beliefs of these extremists.

Our freedom of speech tradition allows fringe groups to express many unpopular ideas. Many people think other people should be muzzled and forced to shut up.  Others see it as a test of freedom of speech.  If it's okay to muzzle unpopular speech, then where does that lead?  Down the road to the ability to muzzle anyone who disagrees with the majority?  When such speech encourages and panders to violence, yes, it crosses the line.  Until then, it is allowed here. We understand that other people in other countries do not feel as we do and that's their business.  Meanwhile, it is a cherished freedom here.

All those rights were only "God given" if you were white and male.  The People had to come in and give the same rights to other races and women.  

Our freedom of speech tradition allows fringe groups to express many unpopular ideas. Many people think other people should be muzzled and forced to shut up.  Others see it as a test of freedom of speech.  If it's okay to muzzle unpopular speech, then where does that lead?  Down the road to the ability to muzzle anyone who disagrees with the majority?  When such speech encourages and panders to violence, yes, it crosses the line.  Until then, it is allowed here. We understand that other people in other countries do not feel as we do and that's their business.  Meanwhile, it is a cherished freedom here.

Oh I 100% agree, as some here who have seen my posts know, I am an absolutist on the first amendment and freedom of speech.  I oppose hate speech laws like those in Canada and the U.K.  and those they are trying to implement here.  Hate speech != hate crime.  

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on March 26, 2010, 11:19:44 AM

Our freedom of speech tradition allows fringe groups to express many unpopular ideas. Many people think other people should be muzzled and forced to shut up.  Others see it as a test of freedom of speech.  If it's okay to muzzle unpopular speech, then where does that lead?  Down the road to the ability to muzzle anyone who disagrees with the majority?  When such speech encourages and panders to violence, yes, it crosses the line.  Until then, it is allowed here. We understand that other people in other countries do not feel as we do and that's their business.  Meanwhile, it is a cherished freedom here.

Oh I 100% agree, as some here who have seen my posts know, I am an absolutist on the first amendment and freedom of speech.  I oppose hate speech laws like those in Canada and the U.K.  and those they are trying to implement here.  Hate speech != hate crime.  

It would be ironic indeed to find anyone in a public forum who disagrees with frredom of speech lol.

I just feel dismayed that for all of our progress as a species we still have poeple wanting to kill others because they are nothing more than different. Plus I do think we need to protect young people from extremist indoctrination until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Impossible to do I know but it's a valid point.

Not sure what free speech curbs in the UK you are referring to. We certainly have lost things like a free right to demonstrate at will (not that anyone takes notice of that) but I'm not aware of any laws restricting freedom of speech. We do have laws that outlaw incitement to racial hatred etc but they are designed he help get rid of religous extremists of the type the incite terrorism and violence. Usually the media does a more than adaquate job of embarassing any extreme views otherwise. We also have a few problems with measures designed to help fight terrorism being used by police to for example harass anyone taking a photograph in Central London. Have been to a few protests about that one.

Britain laughs. You're all so afraid of having an american NHS. I mean, the British one's not perfect but it works.

Quote from: grogberries on March 25, 2010, 10:27:39 PM

Reading the constitution is a waste of time.

Why is that?

It gets in the way of grog's grand plans for society.

Britain laughs. You're all so afraid of having an american NHS. I mean, the British one's not perfect but it works.

It works worse then the current/former US system.

How can a system that provides treatment to all without charge be worse than a system that excludes 13 million people? The NHS is a very good system.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

That is a good fact sheet about the misconceptions of this 'health care reform bill'

Whether or not you think it's constitutional (it isn't), or whether or not you think centralized healthcare is a good or bad thing, this bill isn't the answer to anything other than higher insurance company profits, higher taxes, and higher healthcare costs.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

That is a good fact sheet about the misconceptions of this 'health care reform bill'

Whether or not you think it's constitutional (it isn't), or whether or not you think centralized healthcare is a good or bad thing, this bill isn't the answer to anything other than higher insurance company profits, higher taxes, and higher healthcare costs.

So you want a government but no taxes to pay for it?  Is it unconstitutional for the government to demand that you have car insurance to drive?

Quote from: Mizzle on March 27, 2010, 07:37:01 PM

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

That is a good fact sheet about the misconceptions of this 'health care reform bill'

Whether or not you think it's constitutional (it isn't), or whether or not you think centralized healthcare is a good or bad thing, this bill isn't the answer to anything other than higher insurance company profits, higher taxes, and higher healthcare costs.

So you want a government but no taxes to pay for it?  Is it unconstitutional for the government to demand that you have car insurance to drive?

Part one:
Government taxes should be voluntary.
Part two:
Yes and no.  Yes, because it's unconstitutional.  No, because the FEDERAL government doesn't demand you have car insurance.
Some countries don't have car insurance as the majority (Italy) or at all (Bahrain).  I'm sure there are more examples than just these, but those are in my personal experience.  They seem to get by okay without it (yes, I've been there).

Why should taxes be voluntary? How would stuff get done?

Why should taxes be voluntary? How would stuff get done?

Well, if you take something by force, even if you give the act a name such as 'tax,' it's stealing.
In it's most basic form, it's simply a stronger/larger group of individuals banding together to take from others.

"But what about roads?"
What about them.  Private roads exist.  People in communities band together to maintain just their area, and ensure they have access to other areas.

"What about electricity"
This isn't provided by the government anyway.  A private company sells you electricity (In the US).

Government cannot have any more 'authority' over people than a common person can.
If I can't take money from you, how can I give that power to the government?  Simply put, I cannot.

Whether or not you think it's constitutional (it isn't), or whether or not you think centralized healthcare is a good or bad thing, this bill isn't the answer to anything other than higher insurance company profits, higher taxes, and higher healthcare costs.

About the only thing you have said so far that I agree with.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on March 28, 2010, 04:22:13 AM

Why should taxes be voluntary? How would stuff get done?

Well, if you take something by force, even if you give the act a name such as 'tax,' it's stealing.
In it's most basic form, it's simply a stronger/larger group of individuals banding together to take from others.

"But what about roads?"
What about them.  Private roads exist.  People in communities band together to maintain just their area, and ensure they have access to other areas.

"What about electricity"
This isn't provided by the government anyway.  A private company sells you electricity (In the US).

Government cannot have any more 'authority' over people than a common person can.
If I can't take money from you, how can I give that power to the government?  Simply put, I cannot.

You don't have to pay tax. Simply don't buy anything.

Also, example of how no tax doesn't work:

My grandmother lived on a private cul-de-sac. It was in terrible condition, because only about half of the residents would pay for it. Guess which half wouldn't? The residents of the first half of the road.

My parents live in a place that has private roads. Well technically the prison owns the roads but they won't fix them, and the council won't adopt the roads unless they get fixed first.

My parents live in a place that has private roads. Well technically the prison owns the roads but they won't fix them, and the council won't adopt the roads unless they get fixed first.

Sounds like 'unequal protection under the law.'  It's only okay when it happens to someone else though.
What you're saying is that the (city) council won't adopt the road because it's in too poor of shape.  Well, that's what happens when you rely on the government to support you.  They decide what's fair, whether you think it's fair or not doesn't matter.  You're the minority.

Can't wait until this same process is enacted in the health care industry...
Government decides how much the insurance companies have to cover.
Insurance companies decide how much they pay out for each benefit claimed.
Doctors decide they can't turn a profit, and the insurance is either flat our refused, or the cost share portion is extremely high.
So now you're paying for something that isn't worth a damn.
And it's voluntary too, right?  Wait, no it isn't.  As others have pointed out, look at the portion of 'disposable' income for the median american family that will be absorbed by this mandatory minimum.  And if they don't buy it, they get a fine/penalty from the IRS, without due process.

The whole mandatory insurance thing is a bad move in my opinion. Although it would widen the pool which ought to make the premiums cheaper, its unlikely that the insurance companies will lower prices, especially if they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It seems stupid to force people to buy insurance without providing an affordable public option.

Now that the boring thread topic is out of the way, the thing with the road is that the council is indeed fucking up but its the prison that fucked the road up to begin with. The prison should have kept it in good condition but didn't bother, so now the residents will have to either cough up money themselves, or (as I think they are doing) force the council to adopt the road anyway on the basis that they already pay council tax.

The whole mandatory insurance thing is a bad move in my opinion. Although it would widen the pool which ought to make the premiums cheaper, its unlikely that the insurance companies will lower prices, especially if they have to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It seems stupid to force people to buy insurance without providing an affordable public option.

Now that the boring thread topic is out of the way, the thing with the road is that the council is indeed fucking up but its the prison that fucked the road up to begin with. The prison should have kept it in good condition but didn't bother, so now the residents will have to either cough up money themselves, or (as I think they are doing) force the council to adopt the road anyway on the basis that they already pay council tax.

Right, mandatory insurance is a dumb idea for a multitude of reasons.  Not only are people forced to buy mandatory insurance, but if you've ever shopped for insurance you know that the bare bones plans cover practically nothing, have huge cost shares, and a very limited network of acceptance.
It's going to impact the market very negatively for everyone except the government and the insurance companies (the two responsible for high costs in the industry as it is).

As far as the road thing goes:  I hope the majority of the council members are directly affected by this, otherwise you won't be able to force them to do shit.  That's what happens when you give the government authority over everything including life itself:  The majority wins, you lose.
Fair-schmair, we voted on it.  Democracy is great when you get to exploit others.