[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Slavery and paying taxes are one in the same. Go ahead see if the IRS doesn’t whip that ass for not paying taxes.
This is rhetoric plain and simple
There is three, which one?[/quote]
Rhetoric
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Oh is it now? The original constitution seems to me to place most power in the hands of the States while providing basic unity for the country. It placed checks and balances on the three branches, protected the freedoms of the people, and in every way sought to prevent tyranny.
Do explain your position. How would you define the original constitution.
I don’t even know what you mean by original constituion. Are you talking about the Articles Of Confederation?
The Constitution with the original Bill of Rights.
In EVERY way, dixie? really? stop eating up what you hear at the tea parties, dude. the constitution with the original 8 (or 10 depending on how original you mean) amendments provided for and protected the practice of slavery, and denied women (and obviously blacks) the right to vote. in short, tyranny was abound.
To all you guys who think you don’t take money from uncle sam: if you have ever used PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHWAYS, and SOCIAL SECURITY among other things then you are most CERTAINLY sucking from the teat of uncle sam and enjoying an aspect of socialism.
No we did not enjoy it.
We just had to live with the fact that government coercion crowded out private alternatives-
I “enjoyed” that as much as any other parasite I ever had, unfortunately antibiotics do not take care of socialism.
Once again, a libertarian gets history backwards. There would be no need for government intervention if private industry did the job in the first place. It didn’t, it still doesn’t.
Interesting, you postulate some random “need” and then claim that the market has failed?
I think the free market opened up the Ins. Market from Freddie and Fannie and too it to a disastrous conclusion with free competition.
Well if you want to call the financial community in the US a free market…
Why it happened is because of the lack of Laws pertaining to that particular situation
That is interesting isnt it, how one of the most heavily regulated industries fails in the aread the government meddled with the most and yet again the market has failed and we need yet more laws…
I disagree that banking is heavily regulated; also I think you think regulations are bad. Regulations are laws that Corporations have to follow. When a Corporation steels money, you can not put that Corporation in jail, so you need a different set of laws to make sure Corporations are fair with people, Especially Banking. Banks control every tiny aspect of your credit rating; they have ruined people just by mistake.
[/quote]
No you cannot put a corporation in Jail, but you can put the people that made the actions in prison, sue the company, etc.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Slavery and paying taxes are one in the same. Go ahead see if the IRS doesn’t whip that ass for not paying taxes.
This is rhetoric plain and simple
There is three, which one?
Rhetoric
[/quote]
I am sensing some sarcasm.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Slavery and paying taxes are one in the same. Go ahead see if the IRS doesn’t whip that ass for not paying taxes.
This is rhetoric plain and simple
There is three, which one?
Rhetoric
I am sensing some sarcasm.[/quote]
Very perseptive 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Oh is it now? The original constitution seems to me to place most power in the hands of the States while providing basic unity for the country. It placed checks and balances on the three branches, protected the freedoms of the people, and in every way sought to prevent tyranny.
Do explain your position. How would you define the original constitution.
I don’t even know what you mean by original constituion. Are you talking about the Articles Of Confederation?
The Constitution with the original Bill of Rights.
In EVERY way, dixie? really? stop eating up what you hear at the tea parties, dude. the constitution with the original 8 (or 10 depending on how original you mean) amendments provided for and protected the practice of slavery, and denied women (and obviously blacks) the right to vote. in short, tyranny was abound.
To all you guys who think you don’t take money from uncle sam: if you have ever used PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHWAYS, and SOCIAL SECURITY among other things then you are most CERTAINLY sucking from the teat of uncle sam and enjoying an aspect of socialism.
No we did not enjoy it.
We just had to live with the fact that government coercion crowded out private alternatives-
I “enjoyed” that as much as any other parasite I ever had, unfortunately antibiotics do not take care of socialism.
Once again, a libertarian gets history backwards. There would be no need for government intervention if private industry did the job in the first place. It didn’t, it still doesn’t.
Interesting, you postulate some random “need” and then claim that the market has failed?
I think the free market opened up the Ins. Market from Freddie and Fannie and too it to a disastrous conclusion with free competition.
Well if you want to call the financial community in the US a free market…
Why it happened is because of the lack of Laws pertaining to that particular situation
That is interesting isnt it, how one of the most heavily regulated industries fails in the aread the government meddled with the most and yet again the market has failed and we need yet more laws…
I disagree that banking is heavily regulated; also I think you think regulations are bad. Regulations are laws that Corporations have to follow. When a Corporation steels money, you can not put that Corporation in jail, so you need a different set of laws to make sure Corporations are fair with people, Especially Banking. Banks control every tiny aspect of your credit rating; they have ruined people just by mistake.
No you cannot put a corporation in Jail, but you can put the people that made the actions in prison, sue the company, etc.[/quote]
Very rare to do so
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Oh is it now? The original constitution seems to me to place most power in the hands of the States while providing basic unity for the country. It placed checks and balances on the three branches, protected the freedoms of the people, and in every way sought to prevent tyranny.
Do explain your position. How would you define the original constitution.
I don’t even know what you mean by original constituion. Are you talking about the Articles Of Confederation?
The Constitution with the original Bill of Rights.
In EVERY way, dixie? really? stop eating up what you hear at the tea parties, dude. the constitution with the original 8 (or 10 depending on how original you mean) amendments provided for and protected the practice of slavery, and denied women (and obviously blacks) the right to vote. in short, tyranny was abound.
To all you guys who think you don’t take money from uncle sam: if you have ever used PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHWAYS, and SOCIAL SECURITY among other things then you are most CERTAINLY sucking from the teat of uncle sam and enjoying an aspect of socialism.
No we did not enjoy it.
We just had to live with the fact that government coercion crowded out private alternatives-
I “enjoyed” that as much as any other parasite I ever had, unfortunately antibiotics do not take care of socialism.
Once again, a libertarian gets history backwards. There would be no need for government intervention if private industry did the job in the first place. It didn’t, it still doesn’t.
Interesting, you postulate some random “need” and then claim that the market has failed?
I think the free market opened up the Ins. Market from Freddie and Fannie and too it to a disastrous conclusion with free competition.
Well if you want to call the financial community in the US a free market…
Why it happened is because of the lack of Laws pertaining to that particular situation
That is interesting isnt it, how one of the most heavily regulated industries fails in the aread the government meddled with the most and yet again the market has failed and we need yet more laws…
I disagree that banking is heavily regulated; also I think you think regulations are bad. Regulations are laws that Corporations have to follow. When a Corporation steels money, you can not put that Corporation in jail, so you need a different set of laws to make sure Corporations are fair with people, Especially Banking. Banks control every tiny aspect of your credit rating; they have ruined people just by mistake.
No you cannot put a corporation in Jail, but you can put the people that made the actions in prison, sue the company, etc.
Very rare to do so [/quote]
Well, maybe people should do it more so.
Hell might freeze over before the US has a good healthcare policy. The trouble is how different sides compromise. They tend to each spout off some good (at least somewhat valid) perspectives. Then they fight it out until the worst ideas of each side are accepted and written into law.
I’m a pretty liberal type, so here’s what I think should happen:
Health insurance should be simple and rock solid. Closer to the way life insurance works: You make a deal with the insurance company and it sticks. If you get sick and they decide you are costing them too much, they can learn to make better deals with the next person, but they can’t break the deal they already made with you.
Insurance absolutely SHOULD be allowed to exclude people due to pre-existing conditions. WTF? Insurance is about paying for protection against the unknown. If it were known that I would be crashing my car next month, what makes anyone think an insurance company should have to give me car insurance at the same rate that other people who aren’t going to crash their car pay?
Insurance should be about “Insuring” against bad stuff… Like things that will bankrupt a person. It is retarded that insurance is even involved in $150 doctor visits. The deductible should be like $5000, and the insurance company should have to pay 100% of every penny after that.
For anything under about $5000, people should have to just pay it. People need to endure the cost of their medical care so they have an incentive to keep costs down and make good judgments about the treatment they receive.
Doctor’s should be paid in the same way that Mechanics get paid… By the job. There shouldn’t be any bullshit like “Wait, I need to charge you $50 more to test whether your brake fluid is pure… Just in case. We wouldn’t want your brakes to go out now, would we?” If it costs $100 for one person and $300 for another, and there is no way of knowing in advance, then you should set your price for that procedure at $200 and post it on the front wall. Then people can decide whether it is worth it to them to have the thing done or not.
The government (via our taxes) should be paying for the reasonable medical care for anyone who can’t reasonably afford it. No, this does not include $100,000 worth of care to keep your grandma alive for an extra 2 months. If grandma is rich, she can do that on her own. If not, so be it. There isn’t enough money to give everyone everything, and that $100,000 can do a lot more good elsewhere for other people. Same thing with mammograms or prostate screening for people under 50. If you have the money and want it, go for it. But the government doesn’t need to be paying for anything that is unlikely to actually help.
Now, back to reality where democrats wanting a single payer system (which would be compassionate and fair) and republicans wanting pure corporate and personal freedom (which is a good ideal) are combined to create legislation that forces people to buy for-profit insurance. The result being neither free, compassionate, or fair.
[quote]humanjhawkins wrote:
Hell might freeze over before the US has a good healthcare policy. The trouble is how different sides compromise. They tend to each spout off some good (at least somewhat valid) perspectives. Then they fight it out until the worst ideas of each side are accepted and written into law.
I’m a pretty liberal type, so here’s what I think should happen:
Yes, you are correct. Deregulate the hell out of it.
Yes, and because government has forced insurance companies to take these people they charge a higher price, but with price controls they come back down and people start getting claims denied.
Yes, you get it. If I ever got insurance for my personal self (besides a life insurance, and some other stuff) it would just be catastrophic insurance. The rest I usually ain’t sick enough to be paying for it. And about the deductibles, lets not start regulating insurance again. This is part of agreement for the insurance, how much your premiums cost is inversely related to your deductibles.
[quote]4) For anything under about $5000, people should have to just pay it. People need to endure the cost of their medical care so they have an incentive to keep costs down and make good judgments about the treatment they receive.
If we deregulate the insurance companies, we need to deregulate the hospitals as well, this includes getting rid of all the damn AMA/government regulations on entry and fair prices. And about the table prices, that won’t work in a free market, if I know the specialist over at the facility across town is charging 500 dollars, I’ll just charge 450 dollars.
Why don’t you just donate your taxes to charity that provides medical services to the needy? I think those charities (usually ran by a doctors or churches) are more ethical when determining who gets care. If you start having government decide stuff like this, it just turns into a nightmare, go with the charities. Several of my girlfriends female family members would have died of breast cancer before forty if it weren’t for someone talking them into going to charity paid for mammograms.
Insurance has always been for-profit, profit is the incentive of the entrepreneur to take a risk.
Your post warms the heart, but is flawed.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Oh is it now? The original constitution seems to me to place most power in the hands of the States while providing basic unity for the country. It placed checks and balances on the three branches, protected the freedoms of the people, and in every way sought to prevent tyranny.
Do explain your position. How would you define the original constitution.
I don’t even know what you mean by original constituion. Are you talking about the Articles Of Confederation?
The Constitution with the original Bill of Rights.
In EVERY way, dixie? really? stop eating up what you hear at the tea parties, dude. the constitution with the original 8 (or 10 depending on how original you mean) amendments provided for and protected the practice of slavery, and denied women (and obviously blacks) the right to vote. in short, tyranny was abound.
To all you guys who think you don’t take money from uncle sam: if you have ever used PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHWAYS, and SOCIAL SECURITY among other things then you are most CERTAINLY sucking from the teat of uncle sam and enjoying an aspect of socialism.
No we did not enjoy it.
We just had to live with the fact that government coercion crowded out private alternatives-
I “enjoyed” that as much as any other parasite I ever had, unfortunately antibiotics do not take care of socialism.
Once again, a libertarian gets history backwards. There would be no need for government intervention if private industry did the job in the first place. It didn’t, it still doesn’t.
Interesting, you postulate some random “need” and then claim that the market has failed?
I think the free market opened up the Ins. Market from Freddie and Fannie and too it to a disastrous conclusion with free competition.
Well if you want to call the financial community in the US a free market…
Why it happened is because of the lack of Laws pertaining to that particular situation
That is interesting isnt it, how one of the most heavily regulated industries fails in the aread the government meddled with the most and yet again the market has failed and we need yet more laws…
I disagree that banking is heavily regulated; also I think you think regulations are bad. Regulations are laws that Corporations have to follow. When a Corporation steels money, you can not put that Corporation in jail, so you need a different set of laws to make sure Corporations are fair with people, Especially Banking. Banks control every tiny aspect of your credit rating; they have ruined people just by mistake.
No you cannot put a corporation in Jail, but you can put the people that made the actions in prison, sue the company, etc.
Very rare to do so
Well, maybe people should do it more so.[/quote]
you will get no disagreement from me
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
DixiesFinest wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Oh is it now? The original constitution seems to me to place most power in the hands of the States while providing basic unity for the country. It placed checks and balances on the three branches, protected the freedoms of the people, and in every way sought to prevent tyranny.
Do explain your position. How would you define the original constitution.
I don’t even know what you mean by original constituion. Are you talking about the Articles Of Confederation?
The Constitution with the original Bill of Rights.
In EVERY way, dixie? really? stop eating up what you hear at the tea parties, dude. the constitution with the original 8 (or 10 depending on how original you mean) amendments provided for and protected the practice of slavery, and denied women (and obviously blacks) the right to vote. in short, tyranny was abound.
To all you guys who think you don’t take money from uncle sam: if you have ever used PUBLIC SCHOOLS, HIGHWAYS, and SOCIAL SECURITY among other things then you are most CERTAINLY sucking from the teat of uncle sam and enjoying an aspect of socialism.
No we did not enjoy it.
We just had to live with the fact that government coercion crowded out private alternatives-
I “enjoyed” that as much as any other parasite I ever had, unfortunately antibiotics do not take care of socialism.
Once again, a libertarian gets history backwards. There would be no need for government intervention if private industry did the job in the first place. It didn’t, it still doesn’t.
Interesting, you postulate some random “need” and then claim that the market has failed?
I think the free market opened up the Ins. Market from Freddie and Fannie and too it to a disastrous conclusion with free competition.
Well if you want to call the financial community in the US a free market…
Why it happened is because of the lack of Laws pertaining to that particular situation
That is interesting isnt it, how one of the most heavily regulated industries fails in the aread the government meddled with the most and yet again the market has failed and we need yet more laws…
I disagree that banking is heavily regulated; also I think you think regulations are bad. Regulations are laws that Corporations have to follow. When a Corporation steels money, you can not put that Corporation in jail, so you need a different set of laws to make sure Corporations are fair with people, Especially Banking. Banks control every tiny aspect of your credit rating; they have ruined people just by mistake.
No you cannot put a corporation in Jail, but you can put the people that made the actions in prison, sue the company, etc.
Very rare to do so
Well, maybe people should do it more so.
you will get no disagreement from me :)[/quote]
As you can see from some of my other writings I do not particularly take well to people who do not follow agreements or do as they are supposed too. If hypothetically, I held a policy for someone and someone made a claim, and after having everything checked out and saw that I needed to pay up based on what the policy covered, I would. If I didn’t I would expect to get taken to court, or thrown in prison (if we still did that).