I'm not paying your "tax"

[Big Fitz]

the army is in the constitution, idiot.

DId he really say that????? OMG the army is the main point of the feds and it's not even close......LOLOLOLOLOLOL

the army is the main point of the feds?

on what planet??

To protect your rights from foreign threats. The courts are to protect your rights from domestic threats. Main/sole purpose for our government.

 

[midcan5]

Only in America is doing the right thing criticized as a loss of some bizarre personal freedom. If one is sick and cannot get affordable care where is the freedom? And please no BS about going to emergency rooms, that's a crap answer. Bravo John Roberts, never thought I'd say that.

"America's undesigned system is also an expression of our culture at its best and its worst. Health care in America is innovative, entrepreneurial, expensive, litigious, and wasteful. It is decentralized, driven by self-interest, excellent at the high end, and increasingly unequal. It resists acknowledging trade-offs or limits and is characterized by shocking gaps in basic care. As we plunge into a long-overdue comprehensive overhaul, it's useful to think not just about how we can build on what works in this hodgepodge, but also about how to bring health care into better alignment with our own national identity." We Are What We Treat - The Daily Beast

 

[JakeStarkey]

The extremist far right and the libertarians have been working since WWII to overturn the social compact. They don't grasp that the compact is far stronger in the American character than extremism and libertarianism.

 

[dblack]

Only in America is doing the right thing criticized as a loss of some bizarre personal freedom.

The question revolves around what the 'right' thing is. You prefer a government that decides the right way to live and forces us to comply. That's not freedom or responsibility. It's the opposite of both.

 

[Big Fitz]

Only in America is doing the right thing criticized as a loss of some bizarre personal freedom. If one is sick and cannot get affordable care where is the freedom? And please no BS about going to emergency rooms, that's a crap answer. Bravo John Roberts, never thought I'd say that.

"America's undesigned system is also an expression of our culture at its best and its worst. Health care in America is innovative, entrepreneurial, expensive, litigious, and wasteful. It is decentralized, driven by self-interest, excellent at the high end, and increasingly unequal. It resists acknowledging trade-offs or limits and is characterized by shocking gaps in basic care. As we plunge into a long-overdue comprehensive overhaul, it's useful to think not just about how we can build on what works in this hodgepodge, but also about how to bring health care into better alignment with our own national identity." We Are What We Treat - The Daily Beast

Well let's just bring slavery back why don't we?

I mean if people can't pay, the costs should be made cheaper, right? Okay. So who gets screwed there? The doctors, hospitals, drug companies and everyone who provides healthcare. So what are you going to do when they go out of business because they cannot afford to stay in business? Force them back to work at gunpoint?

Ever hear the phrase "Everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it?" Goods and services have intrinsic value based on scarcity and difficulty to produce plus any other compounding factors inbetween raw and finished product or service. This is not just a set of numbers pulled out of asses for the sake of enrichment of people. It reflects set costs to create goods and services. From the cost of training employees, to getting the natural resources, to making a place in which to sell or perform duties, to government taxes, licenses and dues, for legal protection and many many other things. Not to mention the cost of living expenses for those who function in these industries from the mine and farm to the receptionist at discharge.

If you cannot pay these costs, you go out of business and that affects the costs of everything attached. This is not 'one stage' logic here. It is a complex web of interconnectivity. It's amazing to me that libs will not ignore biodiversity in regards to envirofascism, but when it comes to economics, they are completely ignorant of cause and effect with their actions. As a matter of fact, they are like economic toxic waste dumpers, poisoning large sections of the economy with their idiotic activities and rules and rights that don't exist.

So, again, if these businesses go under, what're you going to do? Put doctors back to work at gun point? Force people at gun point to pay more taxes when it's a task even Sysiphus says "are you nuts"!?!

We can't afford this. We have lost personal freedom. There is no right to health care, as there is no right to enslave others to your wants or needs. Private sector free market capitalism is the ONLY fair and equitable method in which to distribute goods and services.

 

[KevinWestern]

Seriously. Slap fees on me. Go ahead. You will never see a dime you tyrannical clowns.

I take it you don't have health insurance and you expect everyone else to cover your medical bills if you get sick. Scumbag.

Nope. I do have insurance. And guess what? I intend to drop it in protest if this bullshit isn't repealed by 2014. Integrity and principle will win out for this guy.

It's a good question though. If a citizen chooses to be uninsured, who pays for the trip to the emergency room when they injure themselves or become seriously ill? Those are actual dollars that are owed to the hospital, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies that will need to get paid somehow - how do they?





.

 

[flacaltenn]

The extremist far right and the libertarians have been working since WWII to overturn the social compact. They don't grasp that the compact is far stronger in the American character than extremism and libertarianism.

Seems to me that the bigger threat to the Social Compact (which I don't remember signing) are the MASSIVE thefts from Social Sec surpluses over the years and now having the Progressives stealing from the FICA premiums for that endangered program..

That and massive welfare trap that passes for compassion and true help...

 

[KevinWestern]

Only in America is doing the right thing criticized as a loss of some bizarre personal freedom. If one is sick and cannot get affordable care where is the freedom? And please no BS about going to emergency rooms, that's a crap answer. Bravo John Roberts, never thought I'd say that.

"America's undesigned system is also an expression of our culture at its best and its worst. Health care in America is innovative, entrepreneurial, expensive, litigious, and wasteful. It is decentralized, driven by self-interest, excellent at the high end, and increasingly unequal. It resists acknowledging trade-offs or limits and is characterized by shocking gaps in basic care. As we plunge into a long-overdue comprehensive overhaul, it's useful to think not just about how we can build on what works in this hodgepodge, but also about how to bring health care into better alignment with our own national identity." We Are What We Treat - The Daily Beast

Well let's just bring slavery back why don't we?

I mean if people can't pay, the costs should be made cheaper, right? Okay. So who gets screwed there? The doctors, hospitals, drug companies and everyone who provides healthcare. So what are you going to do when they go out of business because they cannot afford to stay in business? Force them back to work at gunpoint?

Ever hear the phrase "Everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it?" Goods and services have intrinsic value based on scarcity and difficulty to produce plus any other compounding factors inbetween raw and finished product or service. This is not just a set of numbers pulled out of asses for the sake of enrichment of people. It reflects set costs to create goods and services. From the cost of training employees, to getting the natural resources, to making a place in which to sell or perform duties, to government taxes, licenses and dues, for legal protection and many many other things. Not to mention the cost of living expenses for those who function in these industries from the mine and farm to the receptionist at discharge.

If you cannot pay these costs, you go out of business and that affects the costs of everything attached. This is not 'one stage' logic here. It is a complex web of interconnectivity. It's amazing to me that libs will not ignore biodiversity in regards to envirofascism, but when it comes to economics, they are completely ignorant of cause and effect with their actions. As a matter of fact, they are like economic toxic waste dumpers, poisoning large sections of the economy with their idiotic activities and rules and rights that don't exist.

So, again, if these businesses go under, what're you going to do? Put doctors back to work at gun point? Force people at gun point to pay more taxes when it's a task even Sysiphus says "are you nuts"!?!

We can't afford this. We have lost personal freedom. There is no right to health care, as there is no right to enslave others to your wants or needs. Private sector free market capitalism is the ONLY fair and equitable method in which to distribute goods and services.

Quick question on the subject of "Free Market" healthcare.

In the Free Market, efficiencies are driven largely by a consumer's evaluation of two factors - price and quality. If a TV is really crappy and costs a lot of money, it will not exist very long.

But when it comes to healthcare we have a situation where we - the consumers - do not have any real grasp on price (because costs are usually fully or mostly covered by insurance), nor do we have much of an opportunity to weigh in quality of products (if a doctor says to take "medicine A" - you take it).

So, I ask, what mechanism drives efficiencies in free market healthcare? In the TV business the consumers pick the winners and losers; who picks the winners and losers in the healthcare world? The insurance companies?

And most importantly: Are the price/quality incentives of the insurance companies aligned with that of the consumer? Personally, I don't think they are aligned. Healthcare is unique, that's for certain, and I think there may be a possible role for gov't to play here...


Just my two cents..

.

 

[Big Fitz]

Only in America is doing the right thing criticized as a loss of some bizarre personal freedom. If one is sick and cannot get affordable care where is the freedom? And please no BS about going to emergency rooms, that's a crap answer. Bravo John Roberts, never thought I'd say that.

"America's undesigned system is also an expression of our culture at its best and its worst. Health care in America is innovative, entrepreneurial, expensive, litigious, and wasteful. It is decentralized, driven by self-interest, excellent at the high end, and increasingly unequal. It resists acknowledging trade-offs or limits and is characterized by shocking gaps in basic care. As we plunge into a long-overdue comprehensive overhaul, it's useful to think not just about how we can build on what works in this hodgepodge, but also about how to bring health care into better alignment with our own national identity." We Are What We Treat - The Daily Beast

Well let's just bring slavery back why don't we?

I mean if people can't pay, the costs should be made cheaper, right? Okay. So who gets screwed there? The doctors, hospitals, drug companies and everyone who provides healthcare. So what are you going to do when they go out of business because they cannot afford to stay in business? Force them back to work at gunpoint?

Ever hear the phrase "Everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it?" Goods and services have intrinsic value based on scarcity and difficulty to produce plus any other compounding factors inbetween raw and finished product or service. This is not just a set of numbers pulled out of asses for the sake of enrichment of people. It reflects set costs to create goods and services. From the cost of training employees, to getting the natural resources, to making a place in which to sell or perform duties, to government taxes, licenses and dues, for legal protection and many many other things. Not to mention the cost of living expenses for those who function in these industries from the mine and farm to the receptionist at discharge.

If you cannot pay these costs, you go out of business and that affects the costs of everything attached. This is not 'one stage' logic here. It is a complex web of interconnectivity. It's amazing to me that libs will not ignore biodiversity in regards to envirofascism, but when it comes to economics, they are completely ignorant of cause and effect with their actions. As a matter of fact, they are like economic toxic waste dumpers, poisoning large sections of the economy with their idiotic activities and rules and rights that don't exist.

So, again, if these businesses go under, what're you going to do? Put doctors back to work at gun point? Force people at gun point to pay more taxes when it's a task even Sysiphus says "are you nuts"!?!

We can't afford this. We have lost personal freedom. There is no right to health care, as there is no right to enslave others to your wants or needs. Private sector free market capitalism is the ONLY fair and equitable method in which to distribute goods and services.

Quick question on the subject of "Free Market" healthcare.

In the Free Market, efficiencies are driven largely by a consumer's evaluation of two factors - price and quality. If a TV is really crappy and costs a lot of money, it will not exist very long.

But when it comes to healthcare we have a situation where we - the consumers - do not have any real grasp on price (because costs are usually fully or mostly covered by insurance), nor do we have much of an opportunity to weigh in quality of products (if a doctor says to take "medicine A" - you take it).

So, I ask, what mechanism drives efficiencies in free market healthcare? In the TV business the consumers pick the winners and losers; who picks the winners and losers in the healthcare world? The insurance companies?

And most importantly: Are the price/quality incentives of the insurance companies aligned with that of the consumer? Personally, I don't think they are aligned. Healthcare is unique, that's for certain, and I think there may be a possible role for gov't to play here...


Just my two cents..

.

If a TV is really crappy and costs a lot of money, it will not exist very long.

You get what you pay for. Dollar stores prove that cheap quality goods at cheap prices still have their place. Generic drugs and nurse practitioners prove that you don't need a specialist or name brand for everything.

But when it comes to healthcare we have a situation where we - the consumers - do not have any real grasp on price

Yes, that's because prices are hidden and no competative shopping is allowed. If you forced price transparency and itemization of all services and goods provided online, you'd watch people shop the competition and prices will plummet as sales and deals go into effect. You can see this already with Lasik surgery where doctors hold 2 for 1 sales and advertise the price of surgery at their clinics. Same thing for heart transplants, stents, gall bladders... what have you. COmpetition and open pricing ALWAYS drops price.

So, I ask, what mechanism drives efficiencies in free market healthcare?

Innovation, technology, transparency, availabiliity, elimination of legal and governmental barricades to providing service to the customer.

who picks the winners and losers in the healthcare world? The insurance companies?

1. Government with regulations, mandates, tort law and other interferances..
2. Insurance companies and those who PAY for their services and goods.
3. Related providers in say health care companies

And most importantly: Are the price/quality incentives of the insurance companies aligned with that of the consumer? Personally, I don't think they are aligned.

Caveat emptor. Have insurance companies ever had other's interest placed first? Nope. Never. Not since their existance. They provide a gamble. You pay them in case you have something go wrong. If something does, they pay. If not, they keep the money. You provide crap service that is no benefit to the consumer, they leave in droves. You make your consumers feel you are a benefit, you stay in business and thrive. It is an act of trade based on a gambling impulse that something WILL go wrong in your life you won't be able to pay for. Why is this hard to comprehend?

Healthcare is unique, that's for certain, and I think there may be a possible role for gov't to play here...

No it's not. Just like you need some form of energy to heat your house is not unique. Or buying food is not unique. Or getting water is not unique Those are critical services and products that keep you from dying. They are forms of trade. Service or product to make your lives better or preserve it. The people must be paid for their time, training, education, place of work, government expenses, legal obligations, licenses, equipment, expendable resources... everything. If you don't charge enough to cover that you will not survive. Just like providing water, groceries, fuel oil or whatever.

Why do people think it's unique? Because government has tangled itself into the process so deeply and it covers such delicate things in a person's life, they think it's special. But just the same way your furnace going out on you in January when it's 30 below is a life and death situation if you don't have money, or any place to go, so is healthcare. You must find a way. But nobody has a right to a properly working furnace, do they?

You don't have a right to health care either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The extremist far right and the libertarians have been working since WWII to overturn the social compact. They don't grasp that the compact is far stronger in the American character than extremism and libertarianism.

Seems to me that the bigger threat to the Social Compact (which I don't remember signing) are the MASSIVE thefts from Social Sec surpluses over the years and now having the Progressives stealing from the FICA premiums for that endangered program..

That and massive welfare trap that passes for compassion and true help...

You as part of We the People don't get to sign out of the compact, bub, you are part of it from the day you are born until you give up citizenship. I do agree having dem and pub politicians stealing from entitlement funds is absolutely wrong. But far right extremism and libertarianism are even worse.

 

[Oddball]

The extremist far right and the libertarians have been working since WWII to overturn the social compact. They don't grasp that the compact is far stronger in the American character than extremism and libertarianism.

Seems to me that the bigger threat to the Social Compact (which I don't remember signing) are the MASSIVE thefts from Social Sec surpluses over the years and now having the Progressives stealing from the FICA premiums for that endangered program..

That and massive welfare trap that passes for compassion and true help...

You as part of We the People don't get to sign out of the compact, bub, you are part of it from the day you are born until you give up citizenship. I do agree having dem and pub politicians stealing from entitlement funds is absolutely wrong. But far right extremism and libertarianism are even worse.

What you just described is known in legalese as a contact of adhesion, which are virtually always ruled to be null and void, ab initio.

Adhesion Contract legal definition of Adhesion Contract. Adhesion Contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Try again, bubski.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Seems to me that the bigger threat to the Social Compact (which I don't remember signing) are the MASSIVE thefts from Social Sec surpluses over the years and now having the Progressives stealing from the FICA premiums for that endangered program..

That and massive welfare trap that passes for compassion and true help...

You as part of We the People don't get to sign out of the compact, bub, you are part of it from the day you are born until you give up citizenship. I do agree having dem and pub politicians stealing from entitlement funds is absolutely wrong. But far right extremism and libertarianism are even worse.

What you just described is known in legalese as a contact of adhesion, which are virtually always ruled to be null and void, ab initio.

Adhesion Contract legal definition of Adhesion Contract. Adhesion Contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Try again, bubski.

We are talking political philosophy based on Locke, Montesquieu, Madison, and so many others.

You try this on them if they were alive, and they would turn your ass into the alley where it belongs.

You don't opt out. That simple. You belong unless you give up citizenship.

 

[Oddball]

We're talking about the definition of the word "contract"...And the duplicitous invocation of the unicorn "social contract" by socialist hacks like you.

Fact remains that the "social contract" -which curiously isn't written down anywhere so I can understand fully its terms and conditions- is a contract of adhesion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "contract" theory your talking about has not a thing to do with the Constitution.

You know that.

We are talking about the Social Compact (go back up the page and read, you goofball).

 

[flacaltenn]

The extremist far right and the libertarians have been working since WWII to overturn the social compact. They don't grasp that the compact is far stronger in the American character than extremism and libertarianism.

Seems to me that the bigger threat to the Social Compact (which I don't remember signing) are the MASSIVE thefts from Social Sec surpluses over the years and now having the Progressives stealing from the FICA premiums for that endangered program..

That and massive welfare trap that passes for compassion and true help...

You as part of We the People don't get to sign out of the compact, bub, you are part of it from the day you are born until you give up citizenship. I do agree having dem and pub politicians stealing from entitlement funds is absolutely wrong. But far right extremism and libertarianism are even worse.

You are not gonna direct my efforts to help others. Especially not thru some ficticiously construed myth of a binding law. I will not EVER abdicate my judgement or direction of TRUE charity or compassion to the nebulous collective..

I for instance would truly like to END SLAVERY in the world. But I bet that's not very high on "the compact's" radar.. You got the "giving records" of Libertarians do ya? How'd you get that? Does my Head Start Volunteer certificate signed by Pat Nixon show up there?

 

[Oddball]

The "contract" theory your talking about has not a thing to do with the Constitution.

You know that.

We are talking about the Social Compact (go back up the page and read, you goofball).

Contracts aren't theories...They're specific binding agreements, entered into by consenting parties, with specific terms and conditions for fulfillment, specific penalties and damages spelled out for breach, and are virtually all closed-ended agreements...That is to say that there is a specific time frame for which the contract binds its consenting parties.

Your mythical "social contract" carries no such provisions and especially short on the consent part.

The Constitution applies to those who swear on oath to preserve and protect it and live by its limitations, not to the average citizen.

Face it...You, once again, don't have the first fucking idea of what you're blabbering about.

 

[flacaltenn]

You as part of We the People don't get to sign out of the compact, bub, you are part of it from the day you are born until you give up citizenship. I do agree having dem and pub politicians stealing from entitlement funds is absolutely wrong. But far right extremism and libertarianism are even worse.

What you just described is known in legalese as a contact of adhesion, which are virtually always ruled to be null and void, ab initio.

Adhesion Contract legal definition of Adhesion Contract. Adhesion Contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Try again, bubski.

We are talking political philosophy based on Locke, Montesquieu, Madison, and so many others.

You try this on them if they were alive, and they would turn your ass into the alley where it belongs.

You don't opt out. That simple. You belong unless you give up citizenship.

Quick question here Jake. Could you quote chapter and verse of the contract where it calls out the helpee commitments and obligations to the helpers??

 

[Big Fitz]

The "contract" theory your talking about has not a thing to do with the Constitution.

You know that.

We are talking about the Social Compact (go back up the page and read, you goofball).

Contracts aren't theories...They're specific binding agreements, entered into by consenting parties, with specific terms and conditions for fulfillment, specific penalties and damages spelled out for breach, and are virtually all closed-ended agreements...That is to say that there is a specific time frame for which the contract binds its consenting parties.

Your mythical "social contract" carries no such provisions and especially short on the consent part.

The Constitution applies to those who swear on oath to preserve and protect it and live by its limitations, not to the average citizen.

Face it...You, once again, don't have the first fucking idea of what you're blabbering about.

Contracts are also an 'opt in' concept, not an opt out as the false doctrine of 'social contract' is understood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What you just described is known in legalese as a contact of adhesion, which are virtually always ruled to be null and void, ab initio.

Adhesion Contract legal definition of Adhesion Contract. Adhesion Contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Try again, bubski.

We are talking political philosophy based on Locke, Montesquieu, Madison, and so many others.

You try this on them if they were alive, and they would turn your ass into the alley where it belongs.

You don't opt out. That simple. You belong unless you give up citizenship.

Quick question here Jake. Could you quote chapter and verse of the contract where it calls out the helpee commitments and obligations to the helpers??

Compact, kiddo, Compact.

See, you can't even read.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "contract" theory your talking about has not a thing to do with the Constitution.

You know that.

We are talking about the Social Compact (go back up the page and read, you goofball).

Contracts aren't theories...They're specific binding agreements, entered into by consenting parties, with specific terms and conditions for fulfillment, specific penalties and damages spelled out for breach, and are virtually all closed-ended agreements...That is to say that there is a specific time frame for which the contract binds its consenting parties.

Your mythical "social contract" carries no such provisions and especially short on the consent part.

The Constitution applies to those who swear on oath to preserve and protect it and live by its limitations, not to the average citizen.

Face it...You, once again, don't have the first fucking idea of what you're blabbering about.

Contracts are also an 'opt in' concept, not an opt out as the false doctrine of 'social contract' is understood.

You are as false as OddDude: compact, not contract.

Try again.

Social Compact.