Forcing people to buy health insurance

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.

Protests can often achieve things in Europe, thats why we protest so much. My dad is President of the resident's association, if I speak to him anytime soon I shall ask him what is happening with the situation, but I imagine that the council will give in as losing a whole voting block is never wanted (its not just one road, there's a whole village affected)

Quote from: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 01:35:53 PM

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.

Protests can often achieve things in Europe, thats why we protest so much. My dad is President of the resident's association, if I speak to him anytime soon I shall ask him what is happening with the situation, but I imagine that the council will give in as losing a whole voting block is never wanted (its not just one road, there's a whole village affected)

I have no idea the specific demographics involved here, but I think it's safe to say that this village isn't represented by the majority of seats on this council, other wise this issue would have been resolved swiftly.  And if they are not the majority, then you can vote our your representation all you want, and it's all for nothing.  It will still be less than the majority.
You can only hope others want to pay for improvements in your/their village.

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on March 28, 2010, 01:45:58 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 01:35:53 PM

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.

Protests can often achieve things in Europe, thats why we protest so much. My dad is President of the resident's association, if I speak to him anytime soon I shall ask him what is happening with the situation, but I imagine that the council will give in as losing a whole voting block is never wanted (its not just one road, there's a whole village affected)

I have no idea the specific demographics involved here, but I think it's safe to say that this village isn't represented by the majority of seats on this council, other wise this issue would have been resolved swiftly.  And if they are not the majority, then you can vote our your representation all you want, and it's all for nothing.  It will still be less than the majority.
You can only hope others want to pay for improvements in your/their village.

I shall see how things progress.

I don't understand.  You want the government to protect your rights given by God but don't want to pay for them?

First, all taxes are supposed to be unapportioned.  Anything that is a % tax is clearly not unapportioned.
Apportionment means:  For every 1 person, X tax, not for every dollar.  Furthermore, congress only has the power to Tax for purposes that are specifically constitutional.  Otherwise, they could just 'evenly' tax everyone's income, and make free movie theatres for the homeless.

Which amendment falls between the 15th and 17th?
Which part about the social security tax isn't constitutional?

I'm glad you get your opinion from JD power.  Let's list the automakers that went bankrupt on that list due to unions:
GMC (and all subordinate brands) and Chrysler.  Oh that's right:  Noone wants to pay higher prices for an inferior product, regardless of what your useless rating entity says.

Executives and unions mis-managing costs and money does not necessarily correlate with quality of a product.

As far as 'free healthcare' goes, go ask any doctor how much he charges for any service.  Unless he says 'it's free' for it, then it's not free.  Someone is paying for it.

Correct, I am.  I also have no taste for being fined for not buying a product from a private company.

  Rights are granted by God, not by a government or it's people.

Says who?

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.

You don't go to jail for owing a tax.

Let's look at a country where tax is voluntary - Greece - and look at the mess they are in. And they are asking the EU (ie coutries that do pay compulsory tax) to bail them out!

Fact is, no tax will mean no schools, no road repairs, no government - nothing. Anarchy. It's a myth that the free market takes care of everything - as we all have seen only too well.

I was reading an article today about the Tea Party protest group (set up to protest health care reforms apart form other things). The truth is that only 13 states out of 51 are objecting the health care bill. That the majority of Americans accept that in a democratic system you have to accept the decisions of the elected government (even if you don't like them) as part of that democratic process.

I think down the line, many of the fears around the consequences of health care reforms will be seen to be unfounded. After all if you already have healthcare, you are not losing anything. The 35 million people without healthcare (and apparently it is that many people) now have a way to get healthcare. Many of those people would be only too happy to pay for insurance if they could find a company to insure them and the premiums were affordable. The only concern should be if insurance companies hike up their prices to keep up profits when insuring previously uninsurable groups to cover the expenses. That's where it will go wrong if it does.

America will never solve any of it's problems internally, either economically or socially, if it doesn't try changing some things. If it doesn't work out it can be changed back.
 

The EU is also asking for the IMF to help bail out Greece. That includes the US as we are the largest donor. That's really irksome.


It's okay if you want to comment on US policies and such, although I don't know why you'd be interested but please make sure you have a thorough knowledge of whatever you're opining about.  It's like your mistaking the US for Uganda again.

The EU is also asking for the IMF to help bail out Greece. That includes the US as we are the largest donor. That's really irksome.


It's okay if you want to comment on US policies and such, although I don't know why you'd be interested but please make sure you have a thorough knowledge of whatever you're opining about.  It's like your mistaking the US for Uganda again.

I didn't mistake Uganda for the US at all. Those activists are AMERICAN, that is the point. If you don;t to accept that you have religious extremists in your country then that's up to you. Anyway that's a different topic.

As for knowledge. I was referring to the details of an article by a well respected American journalist published this weekend or are you going to suggest he needs to brush up on his 'knowledge'.

And yes I am very interested in US policies as anyone interested in the world should be (if that's ok with you!).

My grandfather happened to be an American on my mothers side and I could get an American passport if I wanted to. I have American relatives so I might just know one or two things about American politics after all.

I didn't mistake Uganda for the US at all. Those activists are AMERICAN, that is the point. If you don;t to accept that you have religious extremists in your country then that's up to you. Anyway that's a different topic.

I believe your claim was that people in America wanted the death penalty for homosexuals.  It turned out this was going on in Uganda.  And yes the article mentioned American and European anti-gay activists who may have added to the extremist atmosphere there but as it was an AOL article it focused on the Americans and you did as well. 

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on March 29, 2010, 01:24:55 PM

I didn't mistake Uganda for the US at all. Those activists are AMERICAN, that is the point. If you don;t to accept that you have religious extremists in your country then that's up to you. Anyway that's a different topic.

I believe your claim was that people in America wanted the death penalty for homosexuals.  It turned out this was going on in Uganda.  And yes the article mentioned American and European anti-gay activists who may have added to the extremist atmosphere there but as it was an AOL article it focused on the Americans and you did as well. 

Yes my claim is that there are some religious groups in America that support the death penalty for homosexuals and I do believe in that thread I posted another link from and CALIFORNIAN pastor openly arguing for the same. Or are you going to tell me that religious extremists who advocate the death penalty for homesexuals don't exist in America. 

I think they exist in many parts of the world, even yours, and in many religions. Mote? Beam?

I think they exist in many parts of the world, even yours, and in many religions. Mote? Beam?

Exactly but remember the context in which I made that comment. I was talking about the christian religious right (not americans per se) and if I remember correctly it was in the god vs state discussion - a reason why (imo of course) there should be no place in politics for those religious groups. At no point did I even infer that this was a view of all americans, in fact I think I did say it was something that would never happen, no matter how hard the religious right try to lobby for it.

Is it your contention that religious people should be barred from politics?  Or just made to shut up?

Let's look at a country where tax is voluntary - Greece - and look at the mess they are in. And they are asking the EU (ie coutries that do pay compulsory tax) to bail them out!

Fact is, no tax will mean no schools, no road repairs, no government - nothing. Anarchy. It's a myth that the free market takes care of everything - as we all have seen only too well.

I was reading an article today about the Tea Party protest group (set up to protest health care reforms apart form other things). The truth is that only 13 states out of 51 are objecting the health care bill. That the majority of Americans accept that in a democratic system you have to accept the decisions of the elected government (even if you don't like them) as part of that democratic process.

I think down the line, many of the fears around the consequences of health care reforms will be seen to be unfounded. After all if you already have healthcare, you are not losing anything. The 35 million people without healthcare (and apparently it is that many people) now have a way to get healthcare. Many of those people would be only too happy to pay for insurance if they could find a company to insure them and the premiums were affordable. The only concern should be if insurance companies hike up their prices to keep up profits when insuring previously uninsurable groups to cover the expenses. That's where it will go wrong if it does.

America will never solve any of it's problems internally, either economically or socially, if it doesn't try changing some things. If it doesn't work out it can be changed back.
 

For the most part yes, you have to accept who was elected, but you do not have to accept their actions.  First of all, America is not really a democratic nation, never was one.  We are actually a republic.  The difference is, even though we democratically elect representatives to serve, those representatives are restricted in what they are allowed to do by the constitution, which they cannot change without approval of 3/4th of the states.

In a democracy, the majority always has the power to strip the rights away from the minority, simply by voting.  In a republic, if the law that they must adhere to states that the government cannot strip away the rights of anybody, even the minority, it doesn't matter how many votes they have.   Therefore, I do not have to accept the decisions of the majority if they are violating their oaths or my rights, to a point.  That is I would not do something rash or against the law.  What I mean is, such laws can be challenged in many ways other than waiting for the next election, because we have a republic.

Is it your contention that religious people should be barred from politics?  Or just made to shut up?

Yes I believe that religion should be kept out of politics. What I mean by that exactly is that something should not be made law based on religious grounds which not the same as censorship of course. I believe in free speech and I'd much rather extremism was visible than underground as well.

Is it your contention that religious people should be barred from politics?  Or just made to shut up?

Public servants certainly have their own individual freedom to have religious beliefs.  Also religious organizations are allowed to lobby the government and speak out on their views.  What is banned is the government making laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Mainly what they were attempting to ban was a state established religion, a Christian nation.

You cannot pass a law for example that required you to respect the sabbath.  Or require Christian symbols to be worn on uniforms, or require children to read from the bible in public schools, nor ban them from reading it on their own.

Yes I believe that religion should be kept out of politics. What I mean by that exactly is that something should not be made law based on religious grounds which not the same as censorship of course. I believe in free speech and I'd much rather extremism was visible than underground as well.

Lol, don't bishops of the C of E have an automatic seat in the House of Lords?  I am perhaps mistaken?

 

For the most part yes, you have to accept who was elected, but you do not have to accept their actions.  First of all, America is not really a democratic nation, never was one.  We are actually a republic.  The difference is, even though we democratically elect representatives to serve, those representatives are restricted in what they are allowed to do by the constitution, which they cannot change without approval of 3/4th of the states.

In a democracy, the majority always has the power to strip the rights away from the minority, simply by voting.  In a republic, if the law that they must adhere to states that the government cannot strip away the rights of anybody, even the minority, it doesn't matter how many votes they have.   Therefore, I do not have to accept the decisions of the majority if they are violating their oaths or my rights, to a point.  That is I would not do something rash or against the law.  What I mean is, such laws can be challenged in many ways other than waiting for the next election, because we have a republic.

I completely understand that and that's what makes the relationship between american voters and their representatives unique. It's a tough one because no politician can please all of the people all the time. Let me ask you this.

Taking the issue of healthcare, as it's on topic, I understand the argument that healthcare is not a right, but what makes education any different? Why is education accepted as something every child should have access to, as opposed to healthcare? And if healthcare were to be accepted as a 'right'.....how could that be formed in a way that it pleases everyone? Just asking your view - don't really have any answers myself.

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on March 29, 2010, 02:23:02 PM

Yes I believe that religion should be kept out of politics. What I mean by that exactly is that something should not be made law based on religious grounds which not the same as censorship of course. I believe in free speech and I'd much rather extremism was visible than underground as well.

Lol, don't bishops of the C of E have an automatic seat in the House of Lords?  I am perhaps mistaken?

LOL don't get me started on the House of Lords! I don't know if that's true anymore, probably is despite promises of reform. I know hereditary peerages have been stopped but given no-one is still democratically elected to that House of Elitists who knows. And yes makes a mockery of the church seperate from state when you put bishops in the House of Lords although a Bishop would not be allowed to regect a Bill because the Bible says this or that. But how do we know why anyone votes the way they do? It's like Tony Blair had exactly the same religious conviction that George Bush had. Blair believed he was doing God's duty in Iraq for example but if he'd ever said anything like that publically while Prime Minister it would have been a scandal. It's all codswallop and kippers!

Although there are people in there based on religious standing, it has no real effect. I agree with EIRIP.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on March 29, 2010, 02:14:01 PM

 

For the most part yes, you have to accept who was elected, but you do not have to accept their actions.  First of all, America is not really a democratic nation, never was one.  We are actually a republic.  The difference is, even though we democratically elect representatives to serve, those representatives are restricted in what they are allowed to do by the constitution, which they cannot change without approval of 3/4th of the states.

In a democracy, the majority always has the power to strip the rights away from the minority, simply by voting.  In a republic, if the law that they must adhere to states that the government cannot strip away the rights of anybody, even the minority, it doesn't matter how many votes they have.   Therefore, I do not have to accept the decisions of the majority if they are violating their oaths or my rights, to a point.  That is I would not do something rash or against the law.  What I mean is, such laws can be challenged in many ways other than waiting for the next election, because we have a republic.

I completely understand that and that's what makes the relationship between american voters and their representatives unique. It's a tough one because no politician can please all of the people all the time. Let me ask you this.

Taking the issue of healthcare, as it's on topic, I understand the argument that healthcare is not a right, but what makes education any different? Why is education accepted as something every child should have access to, as opposed to healthcare? And if healthcare were to be accepted as a 'right'.....how could that be formed in a way that it pleases everyone? Just asking your view - don't really have any answers myself.

Heathcare is certainly not a right, but if the public decides that all people should be provided healthcare via taxpayer money, it becomes an entitlement if it is done legally.  There is nothing in the Federal Constitution prohibiting the states from providing their own public education or heathcare, that was done on purpose to allow the people of a state to decide what domestic programs would be supported.  If the states were to authorize the Federal government to provide healthcare at their level, it would become a federal entitlement.

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on March 29, 2010, 02:23:02 PM

Yes I believe that religion should be kept out of politics. What I mean by that exactly is that something should not be made law based on religious grounds which not the same as censorship of course. I believe in free speech and I'd much rather extremism was visible than underground as well.

Lol, don't bishops of the C of E have an automatic seat in the House of Lords?  I am perhaps mistaken?

Wow really?!  That certainly would not be permitted in the U.S.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on March 29, 2010, 02:29:15 PM

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on March 29, 2010, 02:23:02 PM

Yes I believe that religion should be kept out of politics. What I mean by that exactly is that something should not be made law based on religious grounds which not the same as censorship of course. I believe in free speech and I'd much rather extremism was visible than underground as well.

Lol, don't bishops of the C of E have an automatic seat in the House of Lords?  I am perhaps mistaken?

Wow really?!  That certainly would not be permitted in the U.S.

Yeah and you can inherit a seat in the Lords from your father or mother. Basically the House of Lords is made up of former politicians, Upper classes with titles that have inherited the seat and various other people as decided by the government of the day. They keep the seat for life and no-one is democratically elected. It matters because before any bill can become law it has to be approved by the house of Lords. It's the worst aspect of the establishment and class system. And very difficult to reform as the House of Lords themselves has to approve any changes. It's a joke.

You can read more here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_peer

Simlar actions happen in the U.S. as well.  Particularly disturbing is the established relationships between corporations and the government.  The executive branch for instance has a history of appointing government officials who belong to corporations, then after their service are hired back and given enourmous benefits for their work.

For example:  http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/29/mcconnell/index.html

We have exactly the same thing going on here with some MPs holding one or two other jobs (including sitting on the board of directors of major companies) while a sitting MP. There is a review into that going on at present. The other thing we also see (exposed by a c4 documentary recently) are former MPs selling their services to use former contacts (fellow MPs still sitting) to lobby for interests of any company willing to pay them to do so!

We had the scandal of MPs expenses. We in recent years got a freedom of information act as law (in spite of some politicians efforts to block it) which allows access to public records that anyone might seek to keep out of the public domain. From that we saw that MPs were claiming for all sorts of things like a duck house, toilet paper, expensive furniture, which is taxpayers money. The biggest abuse was a 'second homes' scandal. MPs not resident in London were allowed to buy a second home and have the mortgage paid (again taxpayers money) and have it furnished to their desire, while they were in office. Three MPs are facing criminal charges over it. Today the rules were changed so that an MP can only rent a one bedroom flat in London and already some of them are moaning about it. It's was just a runaway gravy train for some MPs. And who set the rules on expenses in the first place? Why the MPs themselves.

Which amendment falls between the 15th and 17th?
Which part about the social security tax isn't constitutional?

Please refer to Article 1, section 9:
"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Now, let's refer to Amendment 16:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So, as long as it's not a direct tax, the congress can lay and collect the taxes on income.
What's a direct tax?  A tax directly on an individual or business.
The 16th amendment effectively did nothing.

Executives and unions mis-managing costs and money does not necessarily correlate with quality of a product.

It doesn't necessarily correlate with quality of a product, I agree.  However, it stands to reason that the more money it costs to produce something, the more you have to charge customers.  So, because nobody wants to buy a car that's more expensive in-class, GM and Chrysler skimp on quality to meet the in-class price point.  After they get you to the dealership with the base-model's price, they charge hundreds of dollars for features that are standard in many other in-class models.  CD Player?  $300.  Keyless entry?  $500.

 

Quote

Rights are granted by God, not by a government or it's people.

Says who?

The founders of this (US) country.  This is a key concept to American law.
Please read the Declaration of Independence for clarification on this subject.
Don't take my word for it;  read it:  http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

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

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.

You don't go to jail for owing a tax.

You don't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment
That's the most famous case I can think of off the top of my head.
Second paragraph, about half way down from that link.

Let's look at a country where tax is voluntary - Greece - and look at the mess they are in. And they are asking the EU (ie coutries that do pay compulsory tax) to bail them out!

Fact is, no tax will mean no schools, no road repairs, no government - nothing. Anarchy. It's a myth that the free market takes care of everything - as we all have seen only too well.

I was reading an article today about the Tea Party protest group (set up to protest health care reforms apart form other things). The truth is that only 13 states out of 51 are objecting the health care bill. That the majority of Americans accept that in a democratic system you have to accept the decisions of the elected government (even if you don't like them) as part of that democratic process.

I think down the line, many of the fears around the consequences of health care reforms will be seen to be unfounded. After all if you already have healthcare, you are not losing anything. The 35 million people without healthcare (and apparently it is that many people) now have a way to get healthcare. Many of those people would be only too happy to pay for insurance if they could find a company to insure them and the premiums were affordable. The only concern should be if insurance companies hike up their prices to keep up profits when insuring previously uninsurable groups to cover the expenses. That's where it will go wrong if it does.

America will never solve any of it's problems internally, either economically or socially, if it doesn't try changing some things. If it doesn't work out it can be changed back.
 

Who put the Greeks in trouble?  The Greek government, that's who.  People in high places made 'off the book' deals with Goldman Sachs, and now they're bust.
Don't bail them out.  Let them go bankrupt.  People shouldn't lend money to people that can't pay.  Lesson learned.
I'm not too familiar with Greece's tax system.  Could you provide documentation to this voluntary tax system?

Free market can, and would, cover all of the things you claim it can't.  What is stopping a village or community from pooling their resources and hiring a teacher to teach their children?  Or pave their roads (this already happens)?
As far as No government...well, that's not necessarily a bad thing.  The government should be nothing more than the arbitraitor of free individuals.
I don't believe that just because people group together 'voluntarily' that they get to decide everything on the face of the Earth.  Without force, the government as we know it would dissolve, and a more free socieity would take it's place.

I cannot predict the future, so I don't know for certain how effective this whole Insurance fiasco will play out.  But, as other people have pointed out, if it fails, or doesn't do it's job as advertised, it's because the bill 'didn't go far enough.'
We Americans have heard all this before.  My argument is, if it's not enough (as some people here claim) to stand on it's own, it shouldn't have been passed.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on March 29, 2010, 05:44:08 AM

 You don't go to jail for owing a tax.

You don't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment
That's the most famous case I can think of off the top of my head.
Second paragraph, about half way down from that link.

Capone went to prison for income tax evasion not for non-payment of taxes.  He failed to disclose his true income.  This is what is generally meant by the phrase 'cheating on your taxes.'  Non-payment of taxes one admits one owes is a different colored horse.

You think no one should be forced to pay taxes but that a government should remain intact to protect so called god given rights?  Because anarcho-capitalism works where?

Quote from: Mizzle on March 29, 2010, 08:19:14 PM

Quote from: Its a Sphere on March 29, 2010, 05:44:08 AM

 You don't go to jail for owing a tax.

You don't?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone#Conviction_and_Imprisonment
That's the most famous case I can think of off the top of my head.
Second paragraph, about half way down from that link.

Capone went to prison for income tax evasion not for non-payment of taxes.  He failed to disclose his true income.  This is what is generally meant by the phrase 'cheating on your taxes.'  Non-payment of taxes one admits one owes is a different colored horse.

To me, this is essentiall the same thing, but you're probably right, if he had claimed all his illegal 'income' on his tax filing, he probably would have just had everything he ever owned seized by the government, and indebt for the rest of his life.
His real crime was not filling out some form to document how much 'income' he made.  Sounds pretty commie to me.  "Where's your paper?  You can't have money without telling the government where every penny comes from!!!"
Lunacy.