Required purchase of health insurance?

[Naethyn]

Inflation is not normal. You have been lied to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Inflation

[araby]

very important: you're already being taxed for health care. it's called medicare and medicaid. they are sub-par programs. in addition to this...in Josh's dad's case, even if he DID have insurance, I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't cover his treatment because of pre-existing condition clauses. this is an insurance company problem that is long overdue for being corrected. when my doctor's mother was sick and needed a new liver, insurance didn't cover that benefit. she died. insurance companies are not run by doctors, they are run be CEO's.

the problem is between insurance companies profiting more than they ever have, while covering the same amount as twenty years ago, refusing to pay for treatment that they claim they cover, and/or refusing to cover the best treatment option because it's more expensive. this is also the problem with medicare and medicaid, even if you DO qualify, your treatment options are NOT the best options. on the other side: doctors are profiting more than they ever have, leaving out of pocket pay ridiculously through the roof. fix those two things, somehow, without dipping in the taxpayer's pockets, as well as the standard of care for the health care programs we have now (ie, making it so that you don't have to be destitute in or order to even qualify, including preventative treatment) and I will be on board. mandatory basic health care? you've got to be kidding me. it's not the same as car insurance. if I don't wanna drive a car, I don't have to get it and if I did, taxpayers would not pay for my car insurance. it is your OWN responsibility to take care of your health and if you wish, to purchase insurance either privately, or through your employer.

you can't fix the problem, if you aren't looking at the right problem.

[araby]

the only way you can compare health and car insurance is through it's premiums, which basically go up if you have to use the insurance. which is pretty much ridiculous.

if you're on a group through your employer, and someone in your office uses a lot of the insurance, guess what?! YOUR premium goes up too. sucks for everyone else who doesn't use their insurance, for whatever reason. I think they should create a health credit.

[Naethyn]

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future"

[Gypsiyee]

serious question: do you know the difference between debt and deficit without linking me a youtube video or a google result?

[Naethyn]

serious question: did you watch the video which negated the only issue I had with nationalized healthcare?

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future"

[ClakarEQ]

What proof do you have that it will raise the deficit?
EDIT
I wanted to better qualify this because that is too open ended. Over the course of 10 years, what proof do you have that it will raise the deficit?

[Jay]

[brinstar]

I'm not gonna argue this with any substantial facts since I don't know em. I guess I'd probably leave that to Brinstar since that's what he does (Substance abuse counselor I think?).

Breaking this down logically I would assume that substance abuse programs have helped a lot of addicts stop using drugs which to me means a number of things:

1) Less hazard to other people ie drunk and stoned drivers or people commiting crime to pay for their addiction.
2) Less demand for drugs and less profitability for dealers. I mean, it might not be much but I figure if I stopped using drugs then the guy that sold me drugs lost my business. A neighborhood program that helps several people get off drugs means the dealer loses several peoples worth of business or has to go elsewhere?
3) Sort of relates to the first thing but: reduction in crime. Less theft (money for drugs), less murder (eliminating dealer competition and potential result in a theft), and of course the obvious, less direct drug related crimes.
4) Indirect economic stimulus. Less people on drugs means they're more capable of work, passing drug tests etc etc.

There's more I'm sure and I know you've dealt with people in your personal life that have ruined their own and other people's lives with their addiction but I would argue that whatever helps them with THEIR fault and THEIR problem in relation to drug use kinda helps everybody. Maybe I'm being naive? Again, I'm not an expert on this topic and I've never done much more than a smoking a lot of pot in high school and the recreational drinking binge.

ideologically you pretty much nailed it

all i want to add is some numbers i ran for the last complete fiscal year in nebraska:

Incarceration of drug offenders costs between $20,000
and $50,000 per person per year. (In Nebraska, one
year at the Nebraska State Penitentiary is estimated at
$31,036) The capital cost of building a prison cell can
be as much as $80,000. In contrast, a drug court
program costs, on average, between $1,500 and
$11,000 annually for each offender. Evaluations from
the State of Oregon and Dallas County, Texas, have
shown that for every dollar invested in drug court,
nearly ten dollars are saved by corrections.

also the last time i checked, offenders re-entering society from prison have about an 80% rate of committing new felonies within their first two years out, whereas that same statistic for everyone that ever graduated my program (i.e. since 2002) is just under 20%

sure, you can make an argument that those numbers will be different depending on the part of the country, but i'd call even a 40% gap well worth the trouble. not to mention i bet we have a lot more meth here than on the east coast

[Drem]

serious question: do you know the difference between debt and deficit without linking me a youtube video or a google result?

lol he couldn't do it

[Harrison]

Yeah, meth hasn't gotten past the midwest yet or the south into here. Heroin and Oxycontin is our problem.

[KaiineTN]

It's sad that drug addicts are often perceived as criminals long before they are perceived as someone in need of help.

I'd argue though that the war on drugs is a massive failure and we'd be better off just legalizing recreational use of most if not all substances and allowing people do what they will with their bodies without fear of legal repercussions. We'd see a massive reduction in violent crimes revolving around drugs if there wasn't a black market for them, and we'd spend hundreds of millions of dollars less on incarceration of people that pose no danger to our society. We could help all of the would-be incarcerated people beat their addictions for a fraction of the cost of the incarceration. Not to mention that the war on drugs is rather racist.

The system we have now is absurd. A third time repeat offender, never having committed a violent crime, can get life in prison, while rapists and murderers can get out? And what is their offense? Putting something in their own body that is bad for them? Oh, the things we could extend that to...

[Jay]

It's sad that drug addicts are often perceived as criminals long before they are perceived as someone in need of help.

I'd argue though that the war on drugs is a massive failure and we'd be better off just legalizing recreational use of most if not all substances and allowing people do what they will with their bodies without fear of legal repercussions. We'd see a massive reduction in violent crimes revolving around drugs if there wasn't a black market for them, and we'd spend hundreds of millions of dollars less on incarceration of people that pose no danger to our society. We could help all of the would-be incarcerated people beat their addictions for a fraction of the cost of the incarceration. Not to mention that the war on drugs is rather racist.

The system we have now is absurd. A third time repeat offender, never having committed a violent crime, can get life in prison, while rapists and murderers can get out? And what is their offense? Putting something in their own body that is bad for them? Oh, the things we could extend that to...

Not saying that I agree or disagree, but Flink, to me you're like the homeless guy that's criticizing my interior decorating.

[Harrison]

I'm an oddball. I believe people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies too.

I think I've explained this enough times here

[brinstar]

flink shut your damn fool mouth, you don't know shit about shit

or rather, keep going, it's pretty hilarious

[Tuggan]

flink shut your damn fool mouth, you don't know shit about shit

or rather, keep going, it's pretty hilarious

probation office secretary doesn't want to be out of work

[brinstar]

business is booming right now

(and i haven't been a PO Sec in over 3 years thx)

[Tikker]

I don't understand why some of you folks are so scared of national health care

do you not see it as part of your duty to help finance health care in return for the freedoms you enjoy?

[KaiineTN]

The freedoms we enjoy are not given to us or provided to us by the government, the government exists to protect the freedoms that are innate to our humanity. Even thinking you might somehow owe the government something for your freedoms is a dangerous and slippery slope that transfers the power from the individual to the establishment.

[Gypsiyee]

serious question: do you know the difference between debt and deficit without linking me a youtube video or a google result?

lol he couldn't do it

well that's kind of why I asked - it wasn't to be snarky or anything, I've just found in a lot of conversations I've had that a lot of people actually don't have a clue what the difference is.

not going to bother responding to flink anymore since he's been brainwashed and sounds like the ron paul website threw up in his throat. I'd ask him if he realizes that the views he represents are that of an anarchist, but I don't want to read another 5 paragraphs with a gross misrepresentation of google keyword search result: liberty.

[brinstar]

lol fight the power man yeah

but, seriouspost:

It's sad that drug addicts are often perceived as criminals long before they are perceived as someone in need of help.

i agree, and this is actually a big problem. before the sweeping drug laws enacted in the 20th century, addicts WERE regarded as ill. many of these laws had the effect of criminalizing an illness (that yes, harrison, could often have been avoided) which filled prisons with people who were sick and not actually criminals-- including physicians who thought they were treating these illnesses. this was before the proliferation of the vastly more dangerous synthetic drugs though

I'd argue though that the war on drugs is a massive failure and we'd be better off just legalizing recreational use of most if not all substances and allowing people do what they will with their bodies without fear of legal repercussions.

wrong, wrong, wrong. you think legalizing methamphetamine will solve the problem of methamphetamine abuse? you think that if we made crack legal, all the crimes that poor people commit to GET MORE CRACK will just go away and vanish into the night? hint: crack/meth/whatever would still cost money, and addicted people would still do bad things and/or hurt each other to get these drugs or the money necessary to pay for them

We'd see a massive reduction in violent crimes revolving around drugs if there wasn't a black market for them

see previous comment. even if there were no black market, people would still do whatever was necessary to get drugs or the money to buy them

we'd spend hundreds of millions of dollars less on incarceration of people that pose no danger to our society

even granting that your average drug user "poses no danger to our society" the purchase of drugs from dealers still supports the violent and heinously criminal cartels that produce it, most of which operate outside our borders and thus our jurisdiction. not to mention a legalization of these drugs would not dismantle illegal drug operations, it would just free up more capital for them to make/ship more drugs! by far the largest expenditure of any illegal drug-trafficking operation is the avoidance of detection

We could help all of the would-be incarcerated people beat their addictions for a fraction of the cost of the incarceration.

true. see my earlier post re: treatment programs. 60% reduction of recidivism versus incarceration, at 10% the cost.

Not to mention that the war on drugs is rather racist.

yes and no. on one end of the continuum, the federal mandatory minimum sentences guidelines on cocaine/crack is wildly and disturbingly racist. the federal penalty for possessing 5 grams of crack (traditionally an inner-city poor minority drug) is identical to the penalty for possessing 500 grams of cocaine (traditionally an affluent white drug), even though crack is LESS POTENT than pure cocaine. in the middle, anti-marijuana laws at their inception were heavily targeted toward mexicans, but that factor has almost completely evaporated. on the other end, meth, MDMA, and many other drugs do not have any racial target demographic (i.e. the fastest-growing demographic for meth use is white females in the midwest)

The system we have now is absurd. A third time repeat offender, never having committed a violent crime, can get life in prison, while rapists and murderers can get out?

you would have to be a pretty big drug trafficker to get life on a drug charge. not to mention, you're drawing a pretty thick line between the seriousness of violent vs non-violent crime-- where does treason stand on your map? what about capital fraud? identity theft on a massive scale?

And what is their offense? Putting something in their own body that is bad for them?

you're being too one-dimensional. first of all, like i said, you'd have to be a major dealer/shipper to get life-- we're not talking about USING, we're talking about MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTING, and DELIVERING. to draw a comparison-- no one needs an AR33 to hunt deer, just like no one needs 15 kilos of coke or four acres of pot plants for "personal use."

second, maybe you think all you're doing is making a personal choice to put a drug into your own body, but no man is an island and we are ALL members of society. where did that drug come from? unless you grew/made it yourself, it probably came from bad people who do other bad things besides make/grow drugs in order to protect their illegal business from rivals or law enforcement, and their actions (that, news flash, YOU ARE SUPPORTING) have a negative-- and often violent-- effect on others.

drugs also have other negative effects on society. drugs make people lazy, drugs make people crappier parents, drugs tear apart families, and drugs increase safety risks not only in dangerous fields of work (i.e. oil drilling) but also in areas as mundane as traffic safety. and before you argue that "drugs don't make people lazy etc, PEOPLE make people lazy etc" keep in mind that i am also including a) activities related to getting or affording drugs and b) the redirection of funds that could be better spent on education for example

Oh, the things we could extend that to...

urge to make gay joke rising... must resist...

[KaiineTN]

I certainly am not an anarchist. I think the rule of law is essential for a society. I also happen to think maximizing individual liberty is a far more virtuous goal than trying to create a utopia where everyone has free healthcare, education, etc.

Here are some things that I happen to believe that I certainly did not pull off some website or get brainwashed into, and I certainly don't think these beliefs are radical at all.

Government, on a macro level, has three essential functions: providing a common defense, enforcing contracts, and providing a sound currency (epic fail). It should not be in the business of regulating personal behavior (gay marriage, recreational drug use, whatever), helping some at the expense of all (welfare, social security, etc.), or asserting that it owns our very lives with things like the selective service (draft, we can call on your if we need you), and the income tax (we own the fruits of your labor and allow you to keep X percent).

Government on a micro level can take on far more responsibilities based on the desires of the locally governed.

The whole is never greater than the sum of its parts.

We should return to being a constitutional republic (rule of law vs. rule of majority), stop throwing around the word "Democracy" like it's the best thing EVAR, and stop being afraid to admit how fascist we've allowed things to become. The corruption that exists within our government may be irreversible (corporate influence and such).

You can't help a man permanently by doing for him what he could and should do for himself.

Governments, well, pretty much all organizations, thrive on creating dependency, and as such, naturally have a tendency to expand without end. The government has little to no incentive to not follow this trend.




Pretty much all the arguments I make boil down into those general beliefs. Are any of them really that crazy?

[Gypsiyee]

I certainly am not an anarchist. I think the rule of law is essential for a society. I also happen to think maximizing individual liberty is a far more virtuous goal than trying to create a utopia where everyone has free healthcare, education, etc.

Here are some things that I happen to believe that I certainly did not pull off some website or get brainwashed into, and I certainly don't think these beliefs are radical at all.

Government, on a macro level, has three essential functions: providing a common defense, enforcing contracts, and providing a sound currency (epic fail). It should not be in the business of regulating personal behavior (gay marriage, recreational drug use, whatever), helping some at the expense of all (welfare, social security, etc.), or asserting that it owns our very lives with things like the selective service (draft, we can call on your if we need you), and the income tax (we own the fruits of your labor and allow you to keep X percent).

Government on a micro level can take on far more responsibilities based on the desires of the locally governed.

The whole is never greater than the sum of its parts.

We should return to being a constitutional republic (rule of law vs. rule of majority), stop throwing around the word "Democracy" like it's the best thing EVAR, and stop being afraid to admit how fascist we've allowed things to become. The corruption that exists within our government may be irreversible (corporate influence and such).

You can't help a man permanently by doing for him what he could and should do for himself.

Governments, well, pretty much all organizations, thrive on creating dependency, and as such, naturally have a tendency to expand without end. The government has little to no incentive to not follow this trend.




Pretty much all the arguments I make boil down into those general beliefs. Are any of them really that crazy?

You say you are not an anarchist, and then go into a tangent about how government should not be in any capacity involved in our lives. The definition of anarchy is literally the belief that government is unnecessary and should be abolished. That belief mirrors your views in many, many ways. You seem to think that a free market and private corporations are far more capable of providing services to the people - what you don't acknowledge is that at the crux of the debate on healthcare is the fact that the nature of the for profit private sector industry has directly resulted in countless unnecessary deaths and bankruptcies. How's that free market thing working out for the people who have had no choice but to utilize it? Why aren't you acknowledging that the very intention of Obama's healthcare plan is to give people choice - you know, the thing you're so rabid about?

The fear of big government is unfounded and ludicrous. Do me a favor to satisfy my curiosity - give me an example of modern day first-world big government that you think we're at risk of becoming.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for those others that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill.

[brinstar]

Pretty much all the arguments I make boil down into those general beliefs. Are any of them really that crazy?

yes:

The whole is never greater than the sum of its parts.

dude, this is so fucking sad. if this is really one of your core beliefs, then it's no wonder you're such a twit. i can't even think of a good way to explain how selfish and cynical this attitude is.


petition to ban flink from Current Affairs

[KaiineTN]

1+1 !> 2.