Healthcare systems even if they are fully private(which the US has never had) still require a buy in the population due to healthcare being something that at some point you will use. And when you utilize it will not be cheap in the long run. So the healthy subsidize the unhealthy. Money is spread around that way, this is insurance.
Obamacare just makes it so either you pay the penalty to the government which is then used to subsidize the sick with insurance or you pay an insurance company, gain some benefit and still subsidize the sick who utilize it more. The system in general has not greatly changed at its core, the government has just come in and said, you must help those who need it and gain a benefit or pay a fine and we will take the money and put it towards those who need it.
It is not tyranny it is solving a problem with in the system in a clunky way.
If we went to straight single payer you still would have 0 choice when it came to paying into the pot. It would just mean you always get benefits from it.
i mean it almost just comes down to a tautology
"in order to make sure everyone has health insurance you must make sure that everyone has health insurance"
In the state of nature, liberty consists of being free from any superior power on Earth. People are not under the will or lawmaking authority of others but have only the law of nature for their rule.
In political society, liberty consists of being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the commonwealth. People are free from the dominion of any will or legal restraint apart from that enacted by their own constituted lawmaking power according to the trust put in it. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: ‘A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws.’ Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others.
That's all liberty is as it was understood by the Founders. Modern government programs that help the poor and sick don't threaten that. Taxes don't threaten that.
The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people cannot do, or cannot well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branches off into an infinite variety of subdivisions.
The first—that in relation to wrongs—embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-performance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself.
From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.
That actually pisses me off a lot. I am legitimately angry at that. Trolling successful! Also, OFA demonstrates the all worst instincts of the progressive caucus, in a single image.
I'm curious, but why would that make you angry? Is it the image or the statement?
I am possibly jaded by the extent to which UK political groups engage in pointed ridicule.
So the flag itself has a history going back to the Revolutionary war. It's a powerful icon of the ideals of the Revolution and the rejection of tyranny.
And yeah, the Tea Party has appropriated it and that upsets people who don't like the Tea Party appropriating iconography from the Revolution in support of goals they don't agree with or maybe even think run counter to the American ideal.
But reworking it to champion a massive Federal government subsidy program that comes complete with its own state-enforced mandatory punishments for citizen noncompliance, the very antithesis of the individualism represented by the flag, and especially for Obama's personal "grassroots" organizing group to do so, upsets me very much.
I suppose it's just odd to me to be offended by ridicule of political symbols
That's like ... half of political debate here
Quick let's talk about flag burning!
It's the Flag Code mandated form of disposal for flags.
US does get more up in arms about treatment of symbols, especially those it sees as tied to our revolutionary history. Good satire on a political figure is fine. In fact expected. But don't you dare touch symbolic stuff that is used to push for nationalism and seen as symbols of freedom. Those are more off limits.
I feel this is actually a post WWII development when we used symbology much more strongly to try to oppose the symbology out of Russia.
1) people & their lives
2) food & drinks
3) clothes + fancy shit
4) vidja
5) movies
6) doge
7) how terrible nerds and hippies are
8) skippys peltscalp
9) how terrible japan is
the seething jealousy just roiling under the surface of number 8 is delectable
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Solo, whatever else Obamacare is, it is most emphatically not people working together for a common good.
It is people being forced to participate, and though the goal is laudable, let's not pretend there's any voluntary component or community-oriented thought involved. You're doing Obamacare in this country whether you like it or not.
Its almost like you don't understand that the government is the means by which a society works together.
I think spool's getting at the fair point that generally, absent some national emergency, our country has not usually allowed the Congress to compel an action when people prefer the alternative of inaction.
You can attach regulations to different decisions - taxes when people decide to earn money, employment regulations when people decide to open businesses - but it is a bold new world wherein the Federal government can affirmatively require that you are not inactive.
Thank goodness the SCOTUS rejected that argument from the government.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Solo, whatever else Obamacare is, it is most emphatically not people working together for a common good.
It is people being forced to participate, and though the goal is laudable, let's not pretend there's any voluntary component or community-oriented thought involved. You're doing Obamacare in this country whether you like it or not.
Snake symbolism: "Join or die"
Obamacare: "Join or get a small fine"
1% of your personal income isn't small. And that fine will grow over the next two years.
None of this would be happening if we were allowed to have gone to a socialized healthcare system when it was first carted around...
but 100 bucks for every 10,000 you make is reasonably small, at first. Eventually it just makes sense to get healthcare as opposed to paying the tax penalty... which is kind of the point.
Yeah, I have a feeling that in practice, no one's going to be paying 1% of their income. Unless it's a stupid personal stand.
For the wealthy, it'll be cheaper to buy health insurance. For the non-wealthy, everything will be subsidized so it'll be cheaper to buy health insurance.
sure they will. in bad locations, $300 monthly premiums are not unheard of even for low-tier plans.
part of this is due to intransigency by gop-dominated state governments but part of it is just that health care is expensive and it's not possible to subsidize everyone.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Kedinik, I think the draft for the Vietnam war counts as compelling an action.
Solo, whatever else Obamacare is, it is most emphatically not people working together for a common good.
It is people being forced to participate, and though the goal is laudable, let's not pretend there's any voluntary component or community-oriented thought involved. You're doing Obamacare in this country whether you like it or not.
Its almost like you don't understand that the government is the means by which a society works together.
I think spool's getting at the fair point that generally, absent some national emergency, our country has not usually allowed the Congress to compel an action when people prefer the alternative of inaction.
You can attach regulations to different decisions - taxes when people decide to earn money, employment regulations when people decide to open businesses - but it is a bold new world wherein the Federal government can affirmatively require that you are not inactive.
Except for responding to the Census.
And signing up for the draft.
And paying taxes.
And answering a subpeona.
Solo, whatever else Obamacare is, it is most emphatically not people working together for a common good.
It is people being forced to participate, and though the goal is laudable, let's not pretend there's any voluntary component or community-oriented thought involved. You're doing Obamacare in this country whether you like it or not.
Its almost like you don't understand that the government is the means by which a society works together.
I think spool's getting at the fair point that generally, absent some national emergency, our country has not usually allowed the Congress to compel an action when people prefer the alternative of inaction.
You can attach regulations to different decisions - taxes when people decide to earn money, employment regulations when people decide to open businesses - but it is a bold new world wherein the Federal government can affirmatively require that you are not inactive.
Not really.
You are required to sign up for the draft.
You are required to participate in the census.
Social Security numbers may as well fit this criteria.
Birth Certificates are a mandatory legal document you must have or else be penalized (heavily).
Sooo, uhhh.... this isn't new.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Solo, whatever else Obamacare is, it is most emphatically not people working together for a common good.
It is people being forced to participate, and though the goal is laudable, let's not pretend there's any voluntary component or community-oriented thought involved. You're doing Obamacare in this country whether you like it or not.
Its almost like you don't understand that the government is the means by which a society works together.
I think spool's getting at the fair point that generally, absent some national emergency, our country has not usually allowed the Congress to compel an action when people prefer the alternative of inaction.
You can attach regulations to different decisions - taxes when people decide to earn money, employment regulations when people decide to open businesses - but it is a bold new world wherein the Federal government can affirmatively require that you are not inactive.
Thank goodness the SCOTUS rejected that argument from the government.
I don't follow what you're getting at here.
I was just trying to lay out what the ACA means as a matter of constitutional history.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Solo, whatever else Obamacare is, it is most emphatically not people working together for a common good.
It is people being forced to participate, and though the goal is laudable, let's not pretend there's any voluntary component or community-oriented thought involved. You're doing Obamacare in this country whether you like it or not.
Its almost like you don't understand that the government is the means by which a society works together.
I think spool's getting at the fair point that generally, absent some national emergency, our country has not usually allowed the Congress to compel an action when people prefer the alternative of inaction.
You can attach regulations to different decisions - taxes when people decide to earn money, employment regulations when people decide to open businesses - but it is a bold new world wherein the Federal government can affirmatively require that you are not inactive.
Thank goodness the SCOTUS rejected that argument from the government.
I don't follow what you're getting at here.
I was just trying to lay out what the ACA means as a matter of constitutional history.
A step forward into the 20th century, I should think.
There was a pensive looking young lady in a black hoodie and black skinny jeans sitting at the table next to mine in this food court and I didn't say hi
The universe has provided this experience to spur you to better yourself. Next time, you will be ready.
The girl is seated near you. You place a paper crane on the table in front of her. She looks up at you, and then back at the crane only to see it burn to ash. Again she looks up. You whisper "impermanence" and walk away.
She looks down again - the ashes of the paper crane briefly take the shape of your phone number before being carried away by the wind.
What if I just had a lot of sex with her while listening to Ritual Necromancy and then fell wildly in love
+2
Options
cptruggedI think it has something to do with free will.Registered Userregular
Is there a game where I get to punch call center techs in the dick forever?
ALL call center techs? Deebs.. mah dick!?
cptrugged on
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
The Head of IT/Production Support came down to visit. He is investigating this cockup personally and has an idea what might have caused it. He thinks there might be a report or application I developed under my own user info that got the login pegged as a systems account when we upgraded security.
This is entirely possible as I have been here for near 6 years and in that time have birthed some weird info-humonculi that I would be embarassed to look at today.
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Is there a game where I get to punch call center techs in the dick forever?
Yeah, it's called "Go Fuck Yourself, Deebaser."
:P
nice!
i will wait for the steam sale.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Well I'm glad the only meeting of the day was worthless. I'm not sure that director of r&d is an appropriate title for a man who has no actual information about what is going on in their technology development.
I wonder what he does all day. Nice chap though. Skinny Scandinavian fellow with a vice grip handshake
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
The Head of IT/Production Support came down to visit. He is investigating this cockup personally and has an idea what might have caused it. He thinks there might be a report or application I developed under my own user info that got the login pegged as a systems account when we upgraded security.
This is entirely possible as I have been here for near 6 years and in that time have birthed some weird info-humonculi that I would be embarassed to look at today.
interesting
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I am still under the strong belief that Locke should be required reading in the US.
Same with the Putney Debates, Paine, Madison and probably a deep look at the constitution and how it has been interpreted including major turning point court cases.
Basically there should be a mandatory class in every school that teaches the history and philosophy behind the constitution, the enlightenment and how we came to look at natural rights and so on. Probably should be junior year of high school. And be a full year long.
The other day I found myself on youtube watching a woman and her husband in an inflatable pool in the living room. The woman was giving birth, and screaming in pain. The husband was caressing and kissing her from behind. The pool was filling with blood. All this was set to throbbing techno music.
Solo, whatever else Obamacare is, it is most emphatically not people working together for a common good.
It is people being forced to participate, and though the goal is laudable, let's not pretend there's any voluntary component or community-oriented thought involved. You're doing Obamacare in this country whether you like it or not.
Its almost like you don't understand that the government is the means by which a society works together.
I think spool's getting at the fair point that generally, absent some national emergency, our country has not usually allowed the Congress to compel an action when people prefer the alternative of inaction.
You can attach regulations to different decisions - taxes when people decide to earn money, employment regulations when people decide to open businesses - but it is a bold new world wherein the Federal government can affirmatively require that you are not inactive.
Thank goodness the SCOTUS rejected that argument from the government.
Isn't there already a healthy history of the government requiring you to preform specific actions or face a fine/penalty/tax? Generally in the case of public safety.
Clean up the toxic waste on your property.
Bring your building up to code.
Register for the draft/jury duty.
I dunno man. I would be more receptive to the argument that people should be able to avoid paying tax for healthcare if it also meant I could avoid spending a third of my taxes on killing brown people.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I am still under the strong belief that Locke should be required reading in the US.
Same with the Putney Debates, Paine, Madison and probably a deep look at the constitution and how it has been interpreted including major turning point court cases.
Basically there should be a mandatory class in every school that teaches the history and philosophy behind the constitution, the enlightenment and how we came to look at natural rights and so on. Probably should be junior year of high school. And be a full year long.
I will support this class as long as it also contains information on when I can tell police officers to fuck off because they're not allowed to search a locked glove compartment or something
i think this is a situation where economic definitions won't help you
it would actually be more apropos to the intuition that @spool32 was alluding to - the "common good" - rather than the activity/inactivity distinction scotus invoked
if it were about the common good, it would totally work under general welfare. which, in the end, is how it did work.
Sometimes I think I should of gone into teaching history.
Just because god damn it American History classes gloss over the important stuff too much so the stuff we build our rhetorical narrative on can instead be taught.
There seem to be two big problems with the exchange right now
the lower level plans are trash and the subsidies aren't high enough
There are two big problems with healthcare in america right now.
It's too goddamn expensive.
Why does it cost so goddamn much?
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I am still under the strong belief that Locke should be required reading in the US.
Same with the Putney Debates, Paine, Madison and probably a deep look at the constitution and how it has been interpreted including major turning point court cases.
Basically there should be a mandatory class in every school that teaches the history and philosophy behind the constitution, the enlightenment and how we came to look at natural rights and so on. Probably should be junior year of high school. And be a full year long.
I think a high-school level of Locke, year-long or not, would be really just enough information to cause misapprehension and confusion rather than understanding
particularly since grokking the idea of evolving interpretations deeply offends a sense of permanence and inviolability ascribed to the national identity
if it were about the common good, it would totally work under general welfare. which, in the end, is how it did work.
Specifically, the Constitution explicitly allows taxes to be levied for the general welfare.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Which is exactly what they did.
The only fuck up involved was the Obama administration trying to pull a sidestep and say "no really the penalty isn't a tax" in order to get the case heard by SCOTUS rather than thrown out for standing.
An argument which John Roberts, correctly, unfucked.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
i mean it almost just comes down to a tautology
"in order to make sure everyone has health insurance you must make sure that everyone has health insurance"
That's all liberty is as it was understood by the Founders. Modern government programs that help the poor and sick don't threaten that. Taxes don't threaten that.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Legolas Draws the Bow of Galadriel by Michael Kaluta
The Book of Merlyn by Alan Lee
The Alan Lee one was signed!
They were cheap enough that I was worried they weren't authorized/legit but hopefully they are.
Mm so good
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
It's the Flag Code mandated form of disposal for flags.
I feel this is actually a post WWII development when we used symbology much more strongly to try to oppose the symbology out of Russia.
the seething jealousy just roiling under the surface of number 8 is delectable
Yeah, it's called "Go Fuck Yourself, Deebaser."
:P
is this any different from what you're doing now?
Thank goodness the SCOTUS rejected that argument from the government.
sure they will. in bad locations, $300 monthly premiums are not unheard of even for low-tier plans.
part of this is due to intransigency by gop-dominated state governments but part of it is just that health care is expensive and it's not possible to subsidize everyone.
Except for responding to the Census.
And signing up for the draft.
And paying taxes.
And answering a subpeona.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
income tax is exactly "an action [where] people prefer the alternative of inaction"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
public goods are nonexcludable and nonrivalrous
healthcare is neither
Not really.
You are required to sign up for the draft.
You are required to participate in the census.
Social Security numbers may as well fit this criteria.
Birth Certificates are a mandatory legal document you must have or else be penalized (heavily).
Sooo, uhhh.... this isn't new.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I don't follow what you're getting at here.
I was just trying to lay out what the ACA means as a matter of constitutional history.
i think this is a situation where economic definitions won't help you
A step forward into the 20th century, I should think.
What if I just had a lot of sex with her while listening to Ritual Necromancy and then fell wildly in love
ALL call center techs? Deebs.. mah dick!?
This is entirely possible as I have been here for near 6 years and in that time have birthed some weird info-humonculi that I would be embarassed to look at today.
nice!
i will wait for the steam sale.
I wonder what he does all day. Nice chap though. Skinny Scandinavian fellow with a vice grip handshake
interesting
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Same with the Putney Debates, Paine, Madison and probably a deep look at the constitution and how it has been interpreted including major turning point court cases.
Basically there should be a mandatory class in every school that teaches the history and philosophy behind the constitution, the enlightenment and how we came to look at natural rights and so on. Probably should be junior year of high school. And be a full year long.
to be clear
my comment was not, you (or our angrier liberal chatters) should not have opinions out loud
but rather, it did not enrich my life to constantly feed myself on political information that upset me
and there is plenty in politics to be mad about, whichever party you affiliate with
so now I avoid it for the most part and I am happier for it
The internet is a magical place
Isn't there already a healthy history of the government requiring you to preform specific actions or face a fine/penalty/tax? Generally in the case of public safety.
Clean up the toxic waste on your property.
Bring your building up to code.
Register for the draft/jury duty.
I dunno man. I would be more receptive to the argument that people should be able to avoid paying tax for healthcare if it also meant I could avoid spending a third of my taxes on killing brown people.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I will support this class as long as it also contains information on when I can tell police officers to fuck off because they're not allowed to search a locked glove compartment or something
it would actually be more apropos to the intuition that @spool32 was alluding to - the "common good" - rather than the activity/inactivity distinction scotus invoked
if it were about the common good, it would totally work under general welfare. which, in the end, is how it did work.
fair enough.
the lower level plans are trash and the subsidies aren't high enough
Just because god damn it American History classes gloss over the important stuff too much so the stuff we build our rhetorical narrative on can instead be taught.
no i account afford this, this is not affordable, what the hell obama help
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
There are two big problems with healthcare in america right now.
It's too goddamn expensive.
Why does it cost so goddamn much?
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I think a high-school level of Locke, year-long or not, would be really just enough information to cause misapprehension and confusion rather than understanding
particularly since grokking the idea of evolving interpretations deeply offends a sense of permanence and inviolability ascribed to the national identity
Specifically, the Constitution explicitly allows taxes to be levied for the general welfare.
Which is exactly what they did.
The only fuck up involved was the Obama administration trying to pull a sidestep and say "no really the penalty isn't a tax" in order to get the case heard by SCOTUS rather than thrown out for standing.
An argument which John Roberts, correctly, unfucked.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.