But we don't want health insurance!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Since when is forcing an individual mandate on everyone a "choice" to help your fellow man? It's nothing less than tyranny, which must be challenged as an overreach of governmental powers. So far, 20 states are taking up that challenge. More to come. There is no democracy in tyranny, no matter who it's supposed to benefit or why.

Since when is forcing an individual mandate on everyone a "choice" to help your fellow man? It's nothing less than tyranny, which must be challenged as an overreach of governmental powers. So far, 20 states are taking up that challenge. More to come. There is no democracy in tyranny, no matter who it's supposed to benefit or why.

I'm sure much the same could be said of paying State and Federal taxes, as that is mandated too, isn't it.

Why is wanting to maintain a healthy population any more tyrannic than maintaining the general infrastructure?

[Jenn! 918]

Very well said, P&V!

I'm curious about the conjecture that even millionaires and billionaires have health insurance. What is that based on? Just because health insurance is a fiscal necessity for some doesn't mean it's a fiscal necessity for everyone. Someone, like Phillip Anschutz, for example, who donates enough money to finance an oncology wing of a hospital center not only has his and his family's health care covered, he gets a juicy tax write off for it. Health insurance for those who can afford to work the system is a loss. If you don't know this, you aren't rich.

I suppose there exists a theoretical asset level at which insurance is no longer necessary. Obviously that level would increase with the cost of healthcare in the region. You'd have to really do some actuarial analysis to determine where the cutoff lies, but my guess is that only a handful of people could ever reach that level.

I'm sure that the hospital with the oncology wing financed by Anschutz has its own stop-loss insurance.

I believe that not having insurance is a political rather than a fiscal decision.

[Ali G. 37]

Do you enjoy your bubble world where you believe the spoonfed ####### about insurance companies being the mortal enemy and government being so awesome in their decisions?

The government represents the people. The insurance companies represent their board, executives and shareholders.

Without regulation, the latter will has milked the American people dry.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm sure much the same could be said of paying State and Federal taxes, as that is mandated too, isn't it.

Why is wanting to maintain a healthy population any more tyrannic than maintaining the general infrastructure?

There are plenty of instances of taxation without representation.

Many taxes we have could be considered 'unconstitutional' because of the purchases they make. Usually they try and use the 'general welfare' wording as an excuse, but fail to look at intent there. Eh, that's another argument for another day though..

Just because your nation is 'living longer' isn't necessarily a good thing. Overall health of the population is good, but I really hate it when people use life expectancy as a defining tool of success. Especially when you look at the baby boomer situation and how much of a burden that is about to become (which is why they want everyone on the system to pay for these damn old people).

The whole "death panels" thing I honestly didn't like, but if we were to get a full blown government system, it would almost have to be a reality in this nation. Old people cost A LOT of money. You exponentially increase that with the baby boomers hitting the system and you're in trouble...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Why is wanting to maintain a healthy population any more tyrannic than maintaining the general infrastructure?

Because wanting to maintain a healthy population could prolong the lives of people who's very existence Sofi (and people like her) do not approve of.

Especially when you look at the baby boomer situation and how much of a burden that is about to become (which is why they want everyone on the system to pay for these damn old people)..

About to? They already are, as far as I'm concerned.

Bring on the death panels!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The government sometimes represents the people. The insurance companies represent their board, executives and shareholders.

Even without regulation, the latter medicare has has milked the American people dry.

There.

[Ali G. 37]

Since when is forcing an individual mandate on everyone a "choice" to help your fellow man? It's nothing less than tyranny, which must be challenged as an overreach of governmental powers. So far, 20 states are taking up that challenge. More to come. There is no democracy in tyranny, no matter who it's supposed to benefit or why.

Straw man argument at its finest. And I thought the liberals were bad. Do you guys have cards you use depending on the argument? Socialists, Tyranny, unconstitutional etc etc.

[Ali G. 37]

There.

I don't know the intricacies of US medicare. I am sure the private sector is involved somehow and ###### over the people for a cut somewhere; as it does in every single other industry it has its hands in.

Medicare works fine in every other civilized country. Why do you think that is? Nevertheless, you still don't get it do you. If the current system is so awesome, then why excluding third world countries, is there not one first world country that uses it? Before answering think of the five wheel example. Not only does Europe lead in health care but it also leads in pharmaceutical research.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am still supposed to feel sorry for poor old VW who is forced not to benefit from a tax break because she doesn't want to purchase health insurance for ideological reasons. What a hoot. And, no dear, I do not envy anything about you, why would you imagine that anyone would envy your imaginary income and internet diplomas?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There are plenty of instances of taxation without representation.

Many taxes we have could be considered 'unconstitutional' because of the purchases they make. Usually they try and use the 'general welfare' wording as an excuse, but fail to look at intent there. Eh, that's another argument for another day though..

Just because your nation is 'living longer' isn't necessarily a good thing. Overall health of the population is good, but I really hate it when people use life expectancy as a defining tool of success. Especially when you look at the baby boomer situation and how much of a burden that is about to become (which is why they want everyone on the system to pay for these damn old people).

The whole "death panels" thing I honestly didn't like, but if we were to get a full blown government system, it would almost have to be a reality in this nation. Old people cost A LOT of money. You exponentially increase that with the baby boomers hitting the system and you're in trouble...

The "death panels" thing was a made up story. Take something that happens under every healthcare system and try to make out that it is some new outrage and the government is to blame. Ridiculous.

Healthcare is about living longer, but it's primarily about ensuring a certain standard of quality of life. Can you claim that quality of life exists when the majority of bankruptcies cite healhcare costs as the cause?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I haven't argued that anyone should feel sorry for me. I get plenty of tax breaks and couldn't care less about this tax break. My main issues are the mentality among those who believe that "soaking the rich" to fund more entitlements is a duty of government, and the use of individual mandates to expand government dependencies to the detriment of initiative and innovation. Not your concerns, but legitimate ones in my book.

[Ali G. 37]

The "death panels" thing was a made up story. Take something that happens under every healthcare system and try to make out that it is some new outrage and the government is to blame. Ridiculous.

Healthcare is about living longer, but it's primarily about ensuring a certain standard of quality of life. Can you claim that quality of life exists when the majority of bankruptcies cite healhcare costs as the cause?

Insurance companies are smart, as they don't lose with bankruptcies.

[Ali G. 37]

I haven't argued that anyone should feel sorry for me. I get plenty of tax breaks and couldn't care less about this tax break. My main issues are the mentality among those who believe that "soaking the rich" to fund more entitlements is a duty of government, and the use of individual mandates to expand government dependencies to the detriment of initiative and innovation. Not your concerns, but legitimate ones in my book.

I'll sum up what is happening in America. You are right in this being much bigger than just UHC. The large number of middle to poor Americans are waking up and realizing that traditionally their government has not looked out for what is in their best interest, rather, looked out for the wealthy 10%. That doesn't sound like a democracy or republic for 'we the people' to me. This is not about welfare, handouts, entitlements, bigger government or any other horseshit I hear. It's about the 90% of the country that only has access to 12% of the investments left, waking up and asking #######. Any Joe the plumber who prefers to earn $15 an hour, rather than the $30 or $50 he would earn in countries like Canada or Australia is an idiot.

It's not about "soaking the rich", it's about Americans being paid what they rightfully worked for; UHC being one step towards this. Rest assured, the wealthy still lived like aristocrats between the 40's to the 70's - when the tax rate was 90 per cent and higher.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[Peikko 1,575]

Then you can sleep easy VW because your concerns are not founded in reality any more than this wealth of yours, or your educational achievements that I am supposed to envy

[Ali G. 37]

I guess Canadians and Aussies got the memo that the top ten percent couldn't give a rats azz about the bottom 90 per cent. As such, using their overwhelming majority of votes, implemented policies which benefited themselves. Ensured that prior to the top 10 per cent getting their hundreds of millions, they are paid a decent salary for a hard days work. Realistically, no different to the wealthy looking out for themselves of course.

Knowledge is power.