The Glade 4.0

Nitefox,
Incoming: "That doesn't count, because..."
or
Incoming: "False Equivalency!!!"

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I was going to read this thread until I hit the wall of ignorance in about every post on page 1. So I stopped and wrote this post.

Let me emphasize that I believe there are merits to both TheRiov/Aizle's and Elmo's point of views on the matter at hand.

So, please allow me to correct some things you have wrong, then you can go back to debating whether it is better to require individuals to purchase insurance or to allow hospitals to refuse care:

1a) EMTALA and other laws require health services organizations in the US, especially and most particularly hospitals, to provide "emergency" care regardless of ability to pay.

1b) If you ask any sufficiently trained or experienced individual, they'll tell you that "emergency" care goes well beyond what most people would think.

2) It is illegal for an insurance company to "drop you" because you develop a disease.

3) It is illegal for a group plan to refuse to insure you because of a pre-existing condition.

4a) Uncompensated care amounts to less than 3% of overall national healthcare spending, which is, as a percentage, less than retailers lose to theft.

4b) Uncompensated care does not create unpredictability for a hospital any more than insurance renegotiations or new CMS guidelines does.

5) Cost shifting is economically non-factual given the model of US healthcare delivery compensation via third party payers.



If any of you would like to refute any of these 5, let me know and I'll create a separate thread in which I'll prove you wrong. In the meantime, please educate yourself as to factuality in the US healthcare system, and feel free to continue your debate.

Thanks.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The conversation has already turned to part of the larger issue that you two seemed to have missed, and Riov still appears not to get.

There is no "within" or "outside" the system the way it is currently configured, as someone is already adsorbing the costs to treat people without any insurance. Costs are merely being shifted from one group to another, with the risk being assumed by the government, and therefore shouldered by the actual producers of the economy, those still paying more in taxes than getting back.

Votes such as these, will in my opinion will be upheld by the USSC, barring another appointment by Obama between now and then, will completely undermine what was already anything but deficit neutral, since the tax base increase they needed to pay for this plan is no longer compelled to join.

What this will do, since the system is not self sustaining, or deficit neutral as the administration and morons in DC would have you believe, is further shift a the weight of the system to those in the most jeopardy of being pushed out of the middle class and self reliance. The entire middle class is getting undermined.

Of course, I have no doubt someone will try to argue that because their healthcare is now covered, the middle class will experience a net gain in disposable income, etc... that's not going to happen. The negative effect of the required increase in taxes and insurance liabilities, medical inaccessibility and depression in wages will outstrip any savings in their insurance. That is of course, except for those in Unions, which have magically gotten themselves excluded from these mandatory plans, and therefore spared from increased costs to them to cover those that until now had no insurance.

The quote on that card makes it eminently inappropriate, despite its enticing title.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

So, who do you think will pay in any case?

People that don't pay now won't magically be able to pay in the future. Like every other agenda being pushed by those in charge these days, folks with money are being tapped to pay for folks without.

You'll have to show me how having it "within the system" results in ANY improvements. Just don't make an assertion though, that's a waste of time.

The facts are: Some folks have money, some don't. Those WITH money are more comfortable and have better services than those that don't. The only way to make those that don't have money more comfortable and provide them with better services is to take from the folks that have money.

If they did it without assistance of the government, if the folks without money just took it from those that have it, it would be called robbery.

What exactly do you think it should be called when the government does it?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Yeah I know...but I have no photo shopping aides to help me.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Forced redistribution of wealth is still forced redistribution of wealth, no matter the size of the pool

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Depends on the system of government. If it's a dictatorship, I'd call it tyranny. If it's a representative democracy operating within a constitutional structure that provides numerous checks and balances and enjoys widespread support from the people governed by it, and if people who reject the system entirely are free to renounce their citizenship and leave, well...then I'd call it paying your taxes.

Does the US allow you to renounce your citizenship? I thought someone, probably Khross, had some experience with that.

True, but there are still many ways for people who get sick to lose their coverage - e.g. the insurer can find a way to rescind the contract, you miss a payment and they cancel coverage, you lose your job and have to switch to a cheaper plan that doesn't cover the treatments you need, etc.


Is that a federal law? If not, do all states have that requirement?

1. Half the nation didn't have to pay income taxes. Payroll taxes still have to be paid.
2. This assumption assumes that people take every deduction available to them, which surprisingly few people do. You would be very surprised how many people don't even know things like the Earned Income Tax Credit exist and pay hundreds of thousands more than they have to.



I would be very surprised if this was NOT the case, considering the disdain other federal workplace related laws are treated with in the actual workforce. The 40-hour workweek is the best example, in my experience pretty much everyone is expected to put in "unpaid overtime." (not really, the base salary is increased to cover the extra work) When people don't, management finds a reason to fire them, or in at-will states doesn't need to come up with one. Safety violations are always a good excuse, because the safety regulations at most companies are so expansive and ridiculous that full compliance is impossible. If you're a burden on their health plan they will find a reason to get rid of you.

Almost half the nation didn't pay taxes, except for sales tax, property tax, excise taxes on various products, etc.

@Elmo - do you need a hug? It's ok, man. I know that conservatism pushes so much hatred on it's adherents. Just let it go. Just breathe deep, and try not to think about that public education you stole from your fellow citizens, or the government subsidized internet you used to have your little tantrum.

Now, pick up your toys. Good boy. That's it. It's ok to cry. You don't have to turn your sadness at being such a hateful miscreant into rage. Just let it out. You're not a bad person, you've just been listening to people who need you to hate in order to accomplish their goals. It happens all the time.

Edit - RD had the right of it, by the way. Taxation in the context of our system of government is *not* tyranny. Not by a long shot.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Yes, but you have to become a citizen of somewhere else in the process.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

What's our Federal Sales Tax rate?
What personal property does the Federal Government tax?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

In order of your examples:
-Depends on the contract, which is based on your employer, which is a flaw of the employer-provided system, but not insurance's fault itself

-Loss of job is a separate consideration from health, in theory, though not in practice. This is another flaw of an employer-provided system, but not insurance's fault itself




Yes. It's called "HIPAA."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Leave where? MY state just fixed the problem.

Or, are you only going to defend the "widespread support from the people governed by it" when it suits you?

Over 70% of the voting electorate just kicked this dog out the door.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

And that's not *that* far off from the general sentiment of the populace on a nationwide basis, either.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Which is entirely irrelevant, given that it's the law of the land no matter what they pass in a given state. Federal law trumps state law. It began with the 14th amendment - the response to the Dred Scott decision.

Ive been struggling to find a state's rights case that wasn't about preserving the right of individual states to oppress, discriminate, and segregate it's population on the basis of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. I keep wondering why people are so supportive of such government power.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

What about this thread?

If you really believed what you are saying, you would recognize that DOMA has not been repealed (recently part of it was ruled as Unconstitutional by a District Federal Court judge) and therefore any overturn of Prop. 8 in California is not Unconstitutional (US Constitution). In fact, the implication would be Prop 8 is entirely unnecessary, because if what you are saying is true, the California State Constitution cannot have language which is directly contrary to Federal Law. Therefore, Prop. 8 is redundant because it prohibits something in California already prohibited by Federal Law.

The plain and simple matter is that you clearly want things your way in certain circumstances but not in others. Your viewpoint is one based on party issues, and not one of consistent Rule of Law. Either you believe in the 10th Amendment or you do not.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

That became painfully obvious when he spouted party rhetoric instead of standing up for working folks.

He's all about singing "the recession is over" when folks can't find jobs. The boy hasn't had an original thought since KOS went on-line.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Did You Know?
Only a dumbass would actually mention state's rights being oppressive and Dred Scott in the same sentence, given that Dred Scott v. Sandford dealt directly with state's autonomy granting freedom to Scott. The decision went against the slave, and by virtue of federal law he was found, essentially, to NOT be free.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Ahhh, DFK. Your interpersonal skills are still so very genteel.



The 14th Amendment was a direct response to this act of the Supreme Court. It established, constitutionally, the equality of all people, and set into the constitution what was already the norm - that citizenship in the United States was conferred at birth. Not just for white people but for all people.

So, who is the dumbass here? Dred Scott, as mentioned by me, has nothing to do with states right. I mentioned as a side note regarding the 14th Amendment.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

You make the mistake of assuming that I think a law is good or correct because it is a federal law. Like state law, there are checks and balances to federal laws, as well. Federal courts can toss both state and federal laws if those laws are unconstitutional. DOMA is clearly unconstitutional for basically the same reason as Prop 8. I am confident that both laws will be thrown down and/or repealed.

However, DOMA is the law of the land until it's bounced or repealed, and it does trump state law. That doesn't make it *right*, or something I have to support. It just is what it is. In fact, I find the law odious enough to warrant civil disobedience in order to draw attention to it's injustice. If I am not mistaken, however, DOMA Leaves the questions up to the states anyway, so I'm not sure what connection you are drawing between DOMA and what happened with Prop 8.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

DOMA, Section 3 defines a marriage as one man and one woman. And DOMA, Section 2 states that no state needs to recognize a marriage between a same sex union because some other state does.

DOMA was passed specifically to get around the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

This does not presume you are right or wrong about DOMA, just stating the facts about it.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut