New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

[joepistole]

"First World" will need to be defined.

1) We are not Germans and we are not Japanese - so no, we CAN NOT have a healthcare identical to their healthcare system. It's not possible. Physically, it's not possible. Can re model their system? Sure, yes, we can. It won't work like theirs - it'll work like how it will work for us. Which, IMO, will be akin to something like Greece. Or, like our other Public institutions, like our Government Schools that crank out functional illiterates. That number of 480,000 - that f*ckers going up. One way or another.

That isn't the arguement. No one is arguing for "identical" healthcare systems. What is being argued is similar in that they are government run and nearly universal. You are using a straw man.

2) We actually can have high standard medicalcare and cheap prices. But first we have to eliminate the Federal Reserve and income tax. Then Americans will have go to work. Through competition for services - we'll get fantastic healthcare. This isn't going to happen. Nope. We're going to go route

You have zero evidence to support those claims and even less rational thought to back up those claims. Your claims run counter to known science and history. But you don't let little things like that get in the way of your ideology.

#3) Fascism.

If you believe that, you don't know what fascism is.

 

[iceaura]

Which is why I maintain the moral argument. Ethically, employing force against innocent people is immoral.

You have no problem with private capitalists employing force against "innocent people", so your argument is not based on moral grounds - it is based on your preference for thuggery via the for-profit decisions of corporate bureaucratic elites rather than governmental organizations. That violates Kant's categorical imperative, btw, if you need philosophical grounds for labeling it amoral.

I want to eliminate thuggery altogether, or if that prove impossible at least reduce it - in other words, no utopia required. And I want medical care delivery systems that work at least as well as the standard First World systems we see all around us.

"First World" will need to be defined.

Producing outcome statistics as good as those found in the other countries currently labeled First World, the twenty or thirty best performing medical care delivery systems currently operating in countries that have indoor plumbing and reliable electrical utilities and paved roads.

1) We are not Germans and we are not Japanese - so no, we CAN NOT have a healthcare identical to their healthcare system. It's not possible. Physically, it's not possible. Can re model their system? Sure, yes, we can. It won't work like theirs - it'll work like how it will work for us. Which, IMO, will be akin to something like Greece.

Greece's medical care system produces better outcome statistics than the US.

Why do you think the US is more like Greece than it is like Germany, France, Denmark, Canada, Japan, or the Scandinavian bloc? Be specific.

To provide Public Healthcare you're going to NEED - - -

And since we have all that stuff, we're already set up - as I pointed out, we have Medicare already, all we would need to do is allow every citizen to take advantage of it. A large improvement in our medical care delivery is available at comparatively little additional trouble or expense.

2) We actually can have high standard medicalcare and cheap prices. But first we have to eliminate the Federal Reserve and income tax.

Other people manage to obtain high standard medical care and much lower prices without destroying their central banks and basic tax structures. Even the US can do it - witness Medicare and the Veterans hospitals before Reagan's vandalisms. Why are we not adopting the systems that work so well in other places, or restoring and expanding the systems that worked so well for us?

#3) Fascism.

We agree that fascism does not deliver high quality medical care at reasonable prices. So maybe we should adopt socialism - since it works better.

 

[Michael]

You have no problem with private capitalists employing force against "innocent people", so your argument is not based on moral grounds - it is based on your preference for thuggery via the for-profit decisions of corporate bureaucratic elites rather than governmental organizations. That violates Kant's categorical imperative, btw, if you need philosophical grounds for labeling it amoral.

Explain how a private person can legally initiate force against an innocent person.

I'll give you an example: A cafe owner who has three employees. How does this 'capitalist' initiate force legally against his employees?

 

[Michael]

And since we have all that stuff, we're already set up...

I'll return to this when I get a bit more time. But, I see we agree to what is needed to run and maintain "Public" Healthcare.

So? I just want to be clear. You think Americans should be legally free to leave the USA, interact with other Americans somewhere outside of the USA (say, on a boat) and are more than fine with them engaging in healthcare services in a 100% totally unregulated manner. But, inside the USA? Inside the tax pen? Then it's a problem? Then free adult Americans lose that civil right?

 

[iceaura]

But, I see we agree to what is needed to run and maintain "Public" Healthcare.

No, I simply observed that we were all set up as you seem to think necessary - so the benefit is ready to hand, at little cost.

I'll give you an example: A cafe owner who has three employees. How does this 'capitalist' initiate force legally against his employees?

1) You change the subject whenever your questions are answered. We notice.

2) Btu we can keep answering each new question: By "legally" we of course assume your proposed lack of government interference in the free market exchange, right? So: He could deduct from their wages for behavior he deems objectionable, to the point that they are so far indebted to him that the amount he pays them in wages is charity on his part, and they cannot quit without having their houses seized and their wages elsewhere garnished and so forth.

He could require that they live in rental housing he owns, and buy their food and fuel from his store. He could pay them in scrip good only there. And of course he would be among the small group of wealthy people who share class interests and social support as well as mutual economic benefit - and own most of the economic opportunity available.

Similar to the sharecropping practices of the landowners and company towns during that period of American life you have finally settled on (after several other proposed decades attracted mockery) as being "free" - i.e. no income tax.

Just a sample of the wide range of threats and coercions available to the rich and powerful. Absent government regulations and taxations and so forth.

You think Americans should be legally free to leave the USA, interact with other Americans somewhere outside of the USA (say, on a boat) and are more than fine with them engaging in healthcare services in a 100% totally unregulated manner. But, inside the USA? Inside the tax pen? Then it's a problem? Then free adult Americans lose that civil right?

That's a silly way of describing it, but sure. Just like France, or Canada. Those would be better systems, agreed?

 

[Michael]

No, I simply observed that we were all set up as you seem to think necessary - so the benefit is ready to hand, at little cost.

I didn't ask you if these are 'already set up and ready to go' in Fascistic USA. I stated they are necessary to provide Public Healthcare in a Nation State such as the USA.

1) You change the subject whenever your questions are answered. We notice.

No I haven't. I haven't finished my reply. I'm busy. In the mean time either agree to the list I made or amend with comment.

2) Btu we can keep answering each new question: By "legally" we of course assume your proposed lack of government interference in the free market exchange, right? So: He could deduct from their wages for behavior he deems objectionable, to the point that they are so far indebted to him that the amount he pays them in wages is charity on his part, and they cannot quit without having their houses seized and their wages elsewhere garnished and so forth.

The owner could require that they live in rental housing he owns, and buy their food and fuel from his store. He could pay them in scrip good only there. And of course he would be among the small group of wealthy people who share class interests and social support as well as mutual economic benefit - and own most of the economic opportunity available.

He could deduct from their wages, if that was in their contract work agreement. That's not initiation of force. That's enforcing a legal contract. Sports stars and movie stars enter such agreements with their sponsors. No one is initiating force against innocent people. If you don't like the deal, don't sign the contract. Join a private union. Etc....

The owner could' require they live in a rental house - and if they volunteer to do so, then this is a better arrangement than their current situation. Or guess what? They'd refuse to take the job. Many Chinese agree to live in factory dorms. Why? Because it's better than life on the countryside. And slowly China becomes rich while Amooricans climb up their collective Progressive anuses. So, again, if the worker AGREES to the contract, then the owner is NOT initiating force against them. It's that simple. As a University student I HAD to agree to live on campus - guess what? I did because it was a better deal then I had not going to University.

You're free to start your own business if you think you can provide your fellow citizens with value for money. You don't HAVE to take a job working for a factory.

See? It's pretty simple. IF the worker VOLUNTEERS to do the work, then it's because it's a better deal then they currently have. This means they find VALUE in voluntarily trading their labor hours for the money they are offered by the person buying those hours. Or guess what? They wouldn't take up the offer. No different than you walking past a cafe'. No one forces you to buy the coffee. And if you agree to ONLY do so under your terms - well guess what? It's your money. You're the capitalist. Take your money and buy something else with it. It's yours. You own it.

Similar to the sharecropping practices of the landowners and company towns during that period of American life you have finally settled on (after several other proposed decades attracted mockery) as being "free" - i.e. no income tax.

Just a sample of the wide range of threats and coercions available to the rich and powerful. Absent government regulations and taxations and so forth.

I'll agree there's some argument around landownership. What is and is not private property. However, we don't have a problem of not having enough land. There's plenty of land on the Earth to go around. The problem is the State LIMITING access to it and using force to protect land owners from would be owners.

 

[iceaura]

I didn't ask you if these are 'already set up and ready to go' in Fascistic USA. I stated they are necessary to provide Public Healthcare in a Nation State such as the USA.

And so I am correct in pointing out that we are not in agreement on the point. So back to the topic - - - -

He could deduct from their wages, if that was in their contract work agreement. That's not initiation of force. That's enforcing a legal contract.

That's what the capitalists said, when declaring that their tenant sharecroppers and coal miners and so forth were in debt to them and could be worked all their lives on the capitalist corporation's terms, in the southern and Appalachian USA from the Civil War until WWII. The attempts to make these debts heritable - so that for example the children of the tenant farmers were also liable to work for the landowner under those terms, as was common in several capitalist systems elsewhere - was thwarted by US governmental interference with the free market for labor.

There is such a thing as coercion in obtaining "legal contracts" in the first place, you know - even written ones, let alone the verbal ones popular among the rich and powerful capitalists when dealing with the poor and powerless throughout history.

See? It's pretty simple. IF the worker VOLUNTEERS to do the work, then it's because it's a better deal then they currently have

Of course. And since the rich and powerful are capable of setting the terms of all the deals available, it is easy for them to force people into acceptance of abusive terms on any one of them. That is how coercion works - by threatening someone with the consequences of refusal to cooperate.

No I haven't. I haven't finished my reply. I'm busy. In the mean time either agree to the list I made or amend with comment.

No. I don't want to change to yet another question - there are an infinite supply of them.

You wanted an example of a socialist setup that would be better than what we have in the US, and you have been supplied with several to choose from as models. You have also objected to Utopian fantasy, so we can assume you are willing to accept major improvements without the gaining of theoretically ideal circumstances. So what is your objection to the US obtaining major improvements in its medical care delivery system, improvements in both cost and outcome, by adopting some of the proven socialistic means of the dozens of other countries with higher functioning systems - since as we did agree, the US is already paying the entire cost of such means in all respects (loss of freedoms, money out of pocket, etc).

However, we don't have a problem of not having enough land. There's plenty of land on the Earth to go around. The problem is the State LIMITING access to it and using force to protect land owners from would be owners

If you check on the circumstances common in the real world, you will find that when it comes time for capitalists to protect their land from the "would be owners", they don't need the State. In fact, they usually prefer that the State make itself scarce for a while - that from the capitalist's point of view, the proper role for the State is in enforcing the terms of the legal contracts that emerge from their negotiations with the poor and powerless. Without taxing the wealthy to do that, of course.

 

[Michael]

And so I am correct in pointing out that we are not in agreement on the point. So back to the topic - - - -

The topic of this thread is Healthcare, not iceaura's fantasies about the "Robber Barrons" and evil coal mine owners.

I made a partial list of some of the players, conditions and institutions that are NECESSARY for Nation State Government funded healthcare. If you find something on that list to be of disagreement, then point it out with comment.




NOTE
Here's a fact: In a free society, people choose to sell labor-hours to coal mine owners do so because that's the best option they have. Another fact: I have no problem with private workers forming private unions. I have no problem with large businesses going bankrupt. Lastly: There's an 'implicit' understanding that IF the State is being used by one group of people to enact force against another group of people - that this immoral use of force is being enacted because it's the will of the majority. Thus, there's no 'NEED' for use of the State, because the majority can enact the very change they wish to enact by voluntarily withholding trade. Coal mine owners go broke pretty quickly when there's no workers working. The fact is, these people are generally in the minority. They use the State to prevent other labor-hour sells to compete with them, cross their picket lines, not join their unions, and etc...


"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington

It was LIMITED for a reason. We live in a Progressive Socialist hellhole with 50% of American families receiving Progressive State welfare, most children educated in Progressive State Schools, the Progressive State run and lost phony wars that cost trillions, the Progressive State Central Bank and Central Planners that bail out the richest 0.1%, the State consumes more of the Earths limited resources and is the largest polluter in the history of the world. Our Nation State, the USSA, confines more nonviolent morally innocent humans in cages compared with any other Nation State in the history of the world: the USSR, Communist China, North Korea - they don't hold a candle to the evils of our Nation State.

You complain about 1800s "Robber Barrons" - give me a f*cking break. They pale, PALE, in comparison to the outright real violence and coercion the US Federal Government enacts against us. The MOST they could do is offer you a shitty deal on your labor-hours. They couldn't FORCE you to sell them, they couldn't FORCE you to use their currency (gold or silver or paper), they couldn't FORCE you to sell your children and grandchildren into bonded labor. Well, now, thanks to you Progressive Socialists, they can and do. They can and the do. And luckily for you, this is not going to change.

Don't worry, you ARE going to get your Public Health, it will be as useless as a Public High school degree in uselessness (and pretty much 80% of the University qualifications) and as safe as Public Housing. If you think 480,000 dead Americans each year from Medical Error kind of sucks - just wait. You'll better to take a chance with an iPhone app and a knife than go into a Public Hospital where 1 in 10 will BE that medical error. Imagine when it's 1 in 2. You're going to see a Black Market in healthcare and our jails will be filled with "Criminal" doctors no different than the guy smoking a joint.

 

[Michael]

So? I just want to be clear. You think Americans should be legally free to leave the USA, interact with other Americans somewhere outside of the USA (say, on a boat) and are more than fine with them engaging in healthcare services in a 100% totally unregulated manner. But, inside the USA? Inside the tax pen? Then it's a problem? Then free adult Americans lose that civil right?

That's a silly way of describing it, but sure. Just like France, or Canada. Those would be better systems, agreed?

I didn't ask about France or Canada. I asked if you think Americans should enjoy the same civil liberties you gave them earlier OUTSIDE of the USA (the right to consume and provide unregulated healthcare goods and services). Do they get to enjoy those civil liberties INSIDE the USA? Inside the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave"?



As for can the USA have a system like the Scandinavian countries or Japan, France or Canada (I'm wondering why you've switched from the Nordic countries and Japan to France and Canada? What? You don't think the USSA can run a healthcare system like the Germans and Japanese? Going to low ball with Canada and France?). Firstly, no, we can not have the Germans' efficient healthcare system and no, we can not have the Japanese one either. We're not them. They're not us. Could we create something like Canada and France? Yes, of course. Only ours will be something a bit more like Greece. As a matter of fact. This is going to happen. And our 'free' healthcare will be as shit our as 'free' Government Schools and our 'free' roads and our 'free' Wars and 'free' Public Housing.

Did you know you could walk onto buses in Germany without paying? It's assumed you paid. I've been in Germany and saw a person driving down the road do a U-turn, and berate some teenagers for walking 'on the side of the road' and not on the sidewalk. They got off the side of the road and onto the sidewalk. I've seen little old ladies in Japan cuss out Japanese teens for picking at a poster corner at a train stop. And I've seen those boys bow and humbly ask for forgiveness. You know, Japanese children don't do things by themselves. It's group. Always group work. It's 'odd' for them to do things by themselves while in early grades. They don't. They work in groups. Did you know Japan has more doctors per person in the world? We have some of the less. Why? Because the AMA decided there was going to be 'too many doctors' and so they used the State to ensure that 'problem' didn't happen. Oooopps! Now they say they 'made a mistake' and we're going to be short the number of doctors needed. Progressive Central Planning - just what Amooorikkka loves. Did you know in Japan it's common to see beer vending machines - all over the place. Oh, and it's common to see restaurants that seat 5. It's normal to see food stored on the streets overnight, unwatched. You know, stores just stack it up on the outside. No one steals. No one loots.

Remember Fukushima? Compare that with Katrina. That's the difference between us and them.


A little story about Australia. A Canadian couple living there for 10 years (or longer) on a work visa were booted out because his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. He was a full Professor and world renowned medical researcher. He's even helped to start some successful companies (in the USA). His wife was forced to leave AU because she was a burden on the healthcare system. Imagine the stress of being diagnosed with cancer, and being forced to uproot and find a whole new life, with your children, in another country. A private insurer, they'd have to argue with you over yours and their legal obligations - that they are contractually obligated to pay for, in a private court with private arbitration, you and they already agreed to when you agreed to purchase their product. But the State can actually kill you. An insurance company is a problem, one that can be sorted out with REAL competition through volunteerism. The State - no. There is no sorting it out. There is no 'opting' not to do business with it. It is force. That's it's nature. That's what it's role IS.

Oh, and yeah, she died.

You Progressive Socialists destroy everything you touch. You live in an oxymoronic fantasy world built on double meanings and well intentioned words. As if 'words' magically change limited resources into the land of plentiful. And the worse thing, when you're not 'regulating' everyone OUT of the markets (and causing scarcity) you're hard at work using force against anyone and everyone who refuse to live in your socialistic hellhole. You're not even satisfied leaving the rest of us adults the hell alone. No. You have your Progressive State and it's Progressive Central Bank and Progressive Labor Tax and you're more than happy to use the State's militant arm against any, and every, human being unfortunate enough to be born into your tax pen with you - all to make your Utopian paradise.

So, in summary, you'll get your Government Healthcare. It will be staffed with Government Licensed functional illiterates being told what to do by a few highly paid rent-seekers who couldn't give two shits if you live or die. Well, I shouldn't say they don't care. Let's put it this way, your health IS the very very very very bottom of their to do list. That's the real world iceaura. You think you're going to 'fix' it with MORE regulations and MORE force? Ha! You'll see. The ONLY thing that MAY turn healthcare around is the free-market entrepreneurs working in the tech industry to provide Citizens with their own means of healthcare - because so far tech is somewhat outside the scope of the idiot Fascists running our lovely Progressive State.

 

[Michael]

There is such a thing as coercion in obtaining "legal contracts" in the first place, you know - even written ones, let alone the verbal ones popular among the rich and powerful capitalists when dealing with the poor and powerless throughout history.

Contracts are not legally binding under coercion. The poor and the powerless, throughout ALL of recorded history have lived under the rule of powerful men - kings, emperors, lords, monarchs. Yes, back then there was no 'free' trade. There was no value for value. Our nation was different. The ONLY way Americans got rich was offering value for value. Sure, you may not have wanted to work in a city factory - and guess what, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO. You were FREE to go back to the farm, you could leave the country, you could start your own business. The ONLY reason people volunteered to work in a factory was because it was better than the other options. If not, then they'd have done that instead. Also, private Unions are legal - only the State can enact laws that prevent them. In a free society, people are free to associate and form a union. Of course, that's not the America of today. Of course, we've reverted right back to square one. Living as property/Citizens OF our rulers.

I find it interesting you mention something about a mine owner 'forcing' people to live in rented houses or not given a job in the mines. While this is a hypothetical, in the real world, the State actually does use real FORCE (as in a bullet to your face) if you don't pay it 35% income / labor tax AND another 25% in local and state taxes AND what little is left it's Central Bank inflates away. In the REAL world, REAL T-bonds are sold off to the Chinese that your children (should you have any) MUST, under duress, physical threats and coercion, PAY BACK - even though they may have never even been born at the time these were sold. IN the real world, this world, the State you love so much starts phony wars all over the world. It bails out the rich and the powerful while shitting on the poor and defenseless.

The ONLY other institution that gets away with such free-reign and larceny, in my experience, is Religion. That's exactly what the State is. It's a religion. And it's no surprise the further you get away from the Religious Right (who generally want a Little State and a Big God) on over the "Progressive" Left you end up with their Religion: Big State and a Little God. It's the same superstitious nonsensical bullshit. No wonder our Political Master's so easily keep Amoooricans in our little Tax Pen. Just watch as Amooorikkkans wave their idiotic flags and cheer their Dear Leaders. For f*ck sake, sometimes you can see tears of love stream down their jowls as Cigar Boy Clinton or his idiot Wife or Bush Jr or Obama walk on the stage to pretend to give two flying f*cks about them. The Bishops are now Senators. The Pope is now a POTUS. All the Pomp and Ceremony. The POWER. The MONEY. The Superstition. IT's all there. And so to are all the little (or not so little) Amooorikkkan's in their Tax Pen moo moo mooing for Dear Leader.

How pathetic.

Keep Praying to the State - you're not getting cheap high quality ANYTHING from these sociopaths.

 

[iceaura]

I made a partial list of some of the players, conditions and institutions that are NECESSARY for Nation State Government funded healthcare.

And since we have them, paid for and suffered under already, there's no penalty or loss to us in getting the better health care that other people get, and saving all that money that they save.

Here's a fact: In a free society, people choose to sell labor-hours to coal mine owners do so because that's the best option they have

And in a society without curbs on coal mine owners, they will see to it that selling one's labor to them for bare survival wages is the best option anyone has.

I find it interesting you mention something about a mine owner 'forcing' people to live in rented houses or not given a job in the mines. While this is a hypothetical,

No, it's historical event in the US - late 1800s and early 1900s. There is nothing hypothetical about it.

Our nation was different. The ONLY way Americans got rich was offering value for value.

Do you ever actually factcheck any of the imbecile assertions on that crackpot website you apparently frequent? Dude, for the tenth time: Slavery. Railroad land deal corruption. Monopoly in oil, steel, transport. The Pinkertons. Government supplied land, water, and transportation. It's a long, long list of Americans getting rich by taking a cut from value they did not create. Hedge funds, right now, according to the most careful analysis, reduce value - as do medical insurance executives and the heirs of WalMart. Bill Gates - the genius marketer of the worst performing operating system in the computer age, and destroyer of by some assessments between 1 and 4% of the productivity of the US economy.

(I'm wondering why you've switched from the Nordic countries and Japan to France and Canada?

I didn't. You are positively uncanny in the consistency with which you are wrong about basic physical and historic fact. If you were making this shit up as you went along, you'd be accurate by chance once in a while.

A little story about Australia. A Canadian couple living there for 10 years (or longer) on a work visa were booted out because his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Trotting out your one and only story again, complete with urban legend aura. I forget - why didn't the wife fly back to Canada for treatment?

I agree that denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is indeed an ugly thing to see and suffer. Many thousands of people have died in the US that way, over the decades - it's been a common cause of death in the US since private medical insurance was invented. In Australia or Canada it's so rare as to be headline material. Any idea why?

 

[Michael]

And since we have them, paid for and suffered under already, there's no penalty or loss to us in getting the better health care that other people get, and saving all that money that they save.

And? Is this supposed to be a revelation? If you agree that these players, conditions and institutions are NECESSARY for 'Nation State' Government funded healthcare then I'll continue with my point.

Not that this matters, its academic, in the end we're going to get more government, we're going to lose more of our civil right, more of what we expected would be our natural born freedoms (shit, the USA is practically a police state as it is - worse than ANY other 1st world nation I've ever been to, ever) and we're never regaining our person privacy (nope, that's gone for good, it isn't coming back) and life in the US will be (by definition) less prosperous. Oh, and you're going to get government-run disease care - it'll probably kill you.

My guess is, as the State runs our of productive tax-chattel to milk, it will (a) import more Chinese (and anyone else they can find) like Australia does (b) cut services to the poorest, as they don't pay anything (c) probably take everything you ever owned and then (d) mortgage your children's future to the bankers to pay you. I mean, f*ck the millenials, they didn't need to raise a family. Not when their future can be given to you for your 'free' healthcare.

Who'd have thought there'd be a day when mothers would put 3 week old infants into day supervision centers, during the absolute most critical stages of development? Who'd think parents would put their 5 years olds onto SSRIs?
Never ending wars.
Spying on Americans.
Checkpoints all across the country.
Bailing out the richest 0.1%.

All that free State, it comes at a cost. Who has to pay? Those infants without their mothers? They're paying. Right now. When they grow up with ED and turn to cutting themselves (and there's a hell of a lot of them cutting) you just tell them you got your "free" government-run healthcare and it was well worth it.

 

[Michael]

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

Let's see:
- the number of workers businesses employ is lower than higher (18.2% vs 3.0%).
- there has been an increase in part time jobs (18.2% higher vs 1.5% lower) and more outsourcing.
- Obamacare costs are being largely passed on to customers (28.8% reporting higher vs 0.0% lower).

AND the number of employees covered for this MASSIVE bureaucracy: 17.6% higher vs 14.7% lower and 67.6% unchanged.
AND lets not forget the huge increases in Premiums, Deductibles, Out-of-pocket maximums, and Co-pays.




See, I WANT people to have affordable high quality healthcare - the solution is pretty simple too. Allow FREE Americans the same freedoms you allow them OUTSIDE the tax-pen, INSIDE the tax-pen. See how simple that is? It's not that hard to figure out. Ending Rx as an example will instantly end the insanity that is the War on Drugs. Hell, a Prison can't even keep drugs out - yet people think we can keep them out of the entire country?

AND you know what the saddest part of it is? Not the millions of fathers, mothers and children who will die because of incompetence, laziness, and other forms of medical error. That is sad. But, IMO, the worse thing is how many MORE children must be deprived of the essential nourishment that is 'parenting' during their formative years. Most drug abusers, I mean addicts, are addicts because of the in appropriate parenting they received - including sexual abuse. Most normal people can take a drug with little long term effect. But for adults with f*cked up childhoods, the evidence suggests their brains are different and are quite susceptible to the effects of many drugs. By resorting to the State, to violence, we'll end up with even that many more children with parentless childhoods. That many more potential drug addicts. That many more cutters and kids with ED. That many more sociopaths. That many more inquisitive children, shoveled into Government Schools only to be shat-out the other end, 12 years later, as functionally illiterate labor-cogs who can't find work in the hyper-regulated Stalinist State-run markets. All because Amoorikkkans can't seem to figure out how to do a good God damn thing without resorting to violence (see: War on Terror). Look at how Amoorikkka treats' it's addict. Given many addicts have been sexually abused. What's the solution to a lifetime of sexual abuse and self-medication in the USSA? Oh, we toss them into rape-cages where they can continue to be sexually abused for the rest of their lives.

What a sad little, pathetic country of tax-chattel the USA tax-pen has become.
Lets hope a legitimate vote and peaceful succession doesn't take much longer than a few decades, that way you can go your way, and we can go ours.

 

[Michael]

In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction

 

[Michael]

WaPo: Unemployed by ObamaCare

WaPo: Unemployed by ObamaCare
Three new Fed surveys highlight damage to the labor market

(1) Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Just reported the results of a special business survey (see above) on the Affordable Care Act and its influence on employment, compensation and benefits. The bank reports that 78.8% of businesses in the district have made no change to the number of workers they employ as the specific result of ObamaCare and 3% are hiring more. More troubling, 18.2% are cutting jobs and employees. Some 18% shifted the composition of their workforce to a higher proportion of part-time labor. And 88.2% of the roughly half of businesses that modified their health plans as a result of ObamaCare passed along the costs through increasing the employee contribution to premiums, an effective cut in wages.

(2) Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Their survey (also out this week) asked: "How, if at all, are you changing (or have you changed) any of the following because of the effects that the ACA is having on your business?" For "number of workers you employ," 21% of Empire State manufacturers and 16.9% of service firms answered "reducing".

(3) Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Polled earlier this month and found that 34% of businesses planned to hire more part-time workers than in the past, mostly because of a rise in the relative costs of their full-time colleagues. ObamaCare may be contributing to that surge to the extent the law's insurance mandates and taxes increase spending on fringe benefits for people who work more than 30 hours.


Oh, and I thought I'd mention again, in case anyone missed it. Of those people who are insured? Many of them (450,000+) will be killed-off BY our lovely Privately-ran, Government-enforced, 'healthcare'. Let's not forget that the AMA, who really 'cares' about our 'health' is hard at work preventing Nurses from working at GPs and trying to stop midwives from competing against OBGY members. Which is what you'd expect from a private union - they work for their member's benefits, not yours, theirs.



No one 'wants' people to miss out on high-quality low-cost healthcare. Only a sociopath would wish such a thing (or perhaps someone selling healthcare services). However, sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya, hoping that the morons who ruined everything else in society, incompetently lost two wars (that they lied about) - many of whom think our best bet is to pray to sky-daddy, yeah, those demagogues who will say anything to get elected, THAT is NOT the optimal solution. Either is giving a monopoly to a bunch of rent-seekers (I'll let the unintended consequences speak for themselves see: Rx and drug laws and the overflowing industrial prison complex or heroin/ painkillers addicted housewives).


The answer is freedom. Freedom for hardworking physicians to compete and provide value for money. Freedom for insurance companies to compete and provide value for money. And freedom for Citizens to make their own choice regarding what they do with their body, who they seek medical advice from and IF they have a certification, who gave it to them.

 

[iceaura]

WaPo: Unemployed by ObamaCare

And you believe that? From the Washington Post?

How gullible are you, anyway?

 

[pjdude1219]

And you believe that? From the Washington Post?

How gullible are you, anyway?

its not about gulliblity. its the arrogance and willful ignorance that permeates libertarian thought.

 

[Michael]

And you believe that? From the Washington Post?

How gullible are you, anyway?

What are you going on about? The WaPo is reporting surveys from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, New York, and Atlanta.

 

[joepistole]

What are you going on about? The WaPo is reporting surveys from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, New York, and Atlanta.

Except those surveys don't say what you claim - damn minor detail again. The overwhelming majority responded positively to the questions posed. Further, when those kind of questions are asked, people frequently, especially those who stand to benefit, often respond misleadingly. It reminds me of the questions employers used to ask of their employees, like are your fairly paid? I have never known an employee who didn't want more money for his/her services.

Here is the unfortunate bottom line, a bottom line you consistently ignore, the empirical data shows socialized healthcare systems work and they work better than what the US had before Obamacare. Further, you cannot provide any empirical data to support your claims and assertions. There has never been a successful libertarian healthcare model - ever - nor will there ever be.

 

[Michael]

Except those surveys don't say what you claim - damn minor detail again. The overwhelming majority responded positively to the questions posed. Further, when those kind of questions are asked, people frequently, especially those who stand to benefit, often respond misleadingly. It reminds me of the questions employers used to ask of their employees, like are your fairly paid? I have never known an employee who didn't want more money for his/her services.

Here is the unfortunate bottom line, a bottom line you consistently ignore, the empirical data shows socialized healthcare systems work and they work better than what the US had before Obamacare. Further, you cannot provide any empirical data to support your claims and assertions. There has never been a successful libertarian healthcare model - ever - nor will there ever be.

Here's the bottom line, SOME socialized systems work better than our Fascistic rent-seeking hyper-regulatory-captured diseasecare.

Japan for example. I can personally compare Japanese, USSA and AU medical care. Japan is head and shoulders MILES above either the USSA or Communist Australia. Miles above. But, guess what Joe. WE are NOT Japanese. We will never BE Japanese.


Here, I'll give you another example: Iraq. How do you think "American" style democracy is working for them? LIKE SHIT. Why? Because they are not culturally anything like the USA. As a matter of fact, back 80 years ago the USA understood this and NEVER promoted our system. We always promoted the English system minus the monarch - which is why there's so many Prime Ministers everywhere and hardly any Presidents. Our system, when it was LIMITED, worked well - FOR US. But doesn't work well elsewhere - hence, we never used to promote it.