Mandatory but affordable health insurance.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Hey, blame the two parties, and the media for that. I'm not party of any of those groups, so I think your diagnosis is off. Wealthy perhaps, but without room for dissent. When there is no room left for dissent, I'm shooting people. Cry me a river. The real problem is that many of you on the other side seem to have a problem comprehending that we do not all wish to be alike. As long as you continue to drag me along without my consent, I'm going to be a pain in somebodies ass.

You said that when there is no room for dissent, you will be shooting people.

That is a "red flag" that might alert authorities that you are someone they should keep an eye on.

If you were in highschool and said that on a webpage they would be out searching your house to make sure you are not plotting to shoot all the other kids at school.

I hope new posters will not think this is one of those webpages where violence is advocated by some cult.

So can you better explain that statement?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Techno, have you explained why you want to use a system in which the recipient of the aid defines need? All this allows you to do is to steal from your neighbors for your own healthcare. At least some objectivity would seem to be in order, even in a system like this.

I was pointing out some of the drawbacks that I saw in the program.

The fact that the federal government does not view that having a car is mandatory in this area of the country would diss-qualify me from affording health care insurance, unless I gave up having a car and those related transportation expendatures (up-keep of car and gas).

Right now I have medicare insurance which I did not request but I did use it once when a I got bit by a stray cat and my hand looked like a baloon. However at my age I should be insured.

Under the proposed plan health care insurance would not be "welfare aid" it would be a "human right". I would pay into the pot like everyone else at a rate that fits my family budget. I do have the right to keep my current medicare insurance and not to sign up for the better insurance that the Hillary plan offers. But if I must get rid of my lease car and walk everywhere, to pay for that insurance on a mandatory bases, then that is wrong.

Why? Why should I have to make more cuts in my family budget to include another mandatory expendature? So I would not personally be defining what I can afford, my family budget, as it now stands intact, would define what I can afford to pay.

Here is how the government normally works. You might qualify for some discount. When you fill out the application for that madatory insurance you list your income, what you pay for monthy for your house, you supply samples of your utility bills, phone bill, and for a monthy supply of food. The "basics". They determine what you can be allowed for cheap public transportation, any expense over that is luxury. I am saying that buying gasoline for private use in your own car is a luxury item in the eyes of the feds because they feel it is up to the state to provide affordable public transportation. If I must add insurance payments to my current budget I could not afford to buy gasoline anymore. Forcing me to walk.

You say, if I define my family budget as including what it costs for gasoline for the family car then I am stealing from other people via the mandatory health insurance. In other words I would have to downsize my family budget to include the extra cost for heath care insurance or else I am stealing form other people to pay for my gasoline costs because in the eyes of the federal government I can survive without a private car.

That is wrong in my viewpoint because I define having use of a private car mandatory to my way of life, they do not. What gives the federal government the right to define what my family budget should include?
I ask you what would give them that right and it is mandatory insurance payments overviewed by the goverment.

That is my main objection.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul You said that when there is no room for dissent, you will be shooting people. That is a "red flag" that might alert authorities that you are someone they should keep an eye on. If you were in highschool and said that on a webpage they would be out searching your house to make sure you are not plotting to shoot all the other kids at school. I hope new posters will not think this is one of those webpages where violence is advocated by some cult. So can you better explain that statement?

I'm saying if all you collectivists can't leave room in this nation for non-collectivists, then you shall deserve the fate that awaits you.


When you attempt to use force to coerce me, you are the ones initiating force. My actions will only be in retaliation to your unjust use of force.


I know you like to paint this as if I were the "bad guy" but only because you philosophy lacks real world application, and you mental giants don't seem to have an answer for anything other than forcing people to comply with your perverted sense of justice.


No, we can't all get along. ( But again, only becuse you are comfortable forcing your views onto us. )

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I'm saying if all you collectivists can't leave room in this nation for non-collectivists, then you shall deserve the fate that awaits you. When you attempt to use force to coerce me, you are the ones initiating force. My actions will only be in retaliation to your unjust use of force. I know you like to paint this as if I were the "bad guy" but only because you philosophy lacks real world application, and you mental giants don't seem to have an answer for anything other than forcing people to comply with your perverted sense of justice. No, we can't all get along. ( But again, only becuse you are comfortable forcing your views onto us. )

"forcing your views on us" you said. Being you said "us" I must ask what collective you represent as that "us" group. How can you even dare use the term "us" if you do not like collectives?

Sound more like an "us" verses "them" agenda you have, which hardly represents any discription of individualism that I know of.

Is "us" the wealthy few? Is "us" the gun lobby? Is "us" the Ron Paul collective?

Tell me how a country can remain in order without law? Why did the peaceful folks in some Western town go out and hire someone to bring order to their town so that the drunk happy nuts did not distroy any sense of security they so desired?

Now I can see where you are really coming from, but when you suggest you might start shooting people if Democrats impose mandatory health insurance then you better get some when the Homeland Department of Security comes knocking, you will need it.

Now you are a good guy and I respect that you should debate these topics, but am concerned when you use such words as shooting people because I do not want you to be pulled into some secret room for questioning. I am not trying to inject unjustified fear in you but why give them reasons to justify such action agenst you? Why become a person of interest when you can use a better choice of wording to make your case that is less threatening.

Now enforced payments to a health care system (namely to a insurance company) is something worthy of debate. Although I am not sure why you do not want affordable health care unless you work for the medical industry. I do not like insurace companies as they add to the expense of medial treatment with their middle-man fees. Film maker Moore does not like that idea and thinks healthy care should be totally govenmental and not part of a profit-based business. You might not like it if you think that you will never need health care. You might not like poor people getting health care form such a program because you can afford to buy private coverage. Miserism is part of the capitalistic thinking for some people who hate compassion with a passion. So you can gripe but don't gripe by shooting people, such action would only promote ideas for more gun control regulation. A repsonsble gun owner should have anger management under control to prevent radical over-reacton.
Just wait four years and vote for someone else. Prevent domestic terrroism by thinking clearly. Use a protest sign not a gun.

And most of all, do not allow anything to drive you to the brink of insanity, stay calm and debate with reason and wisdom. Or if you must, use a grumpy face or bold type. Donate to the Black Phathers or some other revolutionary group but beware, the Watts Riots did not prove to be all that successful. Nor any other such "manifesto".

With exception of Iraq where armed citizen revolution of occupation seems to be working. But who wants that to happen here?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul "forcing your views on us" you said. Being you said "us" I must ask what collective you represent as that "us" group. How can you even dare use the term "us" if you do not like collectives? Sound more like an "us" verses "them" agenda you have, which hardly represents any discription of individualism that I know of. Is "us" the wealthy few? Is "us" the gun lobby? Is "us" the Ron Paul collective?

I qualified who the "us" is in this scenario, it is those of us who do not subscribe to your view that all must participate in these socialist collectives.


The law allows you to create what they propose without coercing people who do not wish to participate, but yet the legislations drafters don't seem willing to allow anybody to opt out. That, my friend, is government force, and it's unjustified.


What I want to know is why? Why can you not allow people to opt out?

Quote by: Technosoul Tell me how a country can remain in order without law?

So, a lack of personal health insurance equals a lack of law?


I'd like to see you defend that contention.

Quote by: Technosoul Why did the peaceful folks in some Western town go out and hire someone to bring order to their town so that the drunk happy nuts did not distroy any sense of security they so desired?

I know I'm supposed to be playing the part of "drunk happy nut" in this senario, but all I am really trying to do is prevent you from being able to steal my income.

Quote by: Technosoul "Now I can see where you are really coming from, but when you suggest you might start shooting people if Democrats impose mandatory health insurance then you better get some when the Homeland Department of Security comes knocking, you will need it.

Hehehe, no wonder there is such misunderstanding, and ill will in these forums, ah, they are so ripe with misunderstandings.


My point was that I will stop reporting income to be taxed if they insist I join the eighty percent tax bracket. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay for the population explosion of inner city youth that is a result of this clealry revolutionary legislation.


Now, when they send people to seize my property, or jail me for not being a communist, they'll be the ones using force, and they'll be the ones dealth with as the situation requires.


However, don't discount the fact that this legislation could make me become much more comfortable with the idea of becoming a pirate, and looting from people who would steal from me.


Why should I trade labor for a wage if I don't get to keep the wages?

Quote by: Technosoul Now you are a good guy and I respect that you should debate these topics, but am concerned when you use such words as shooting people because I do not want you to be pulled into some secret room for questioning. I am not trying to inject unjustified fear in you but why give them reasons to justify such action agenst you? Why become a person of interest when you can use a better choice of wording to make your case that is less threatening.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot believe that you respect me. If you did, you would understand how important it is that you not use government force to coerce me into a collective I do not support. Because in the end, the government will send people with guns to make me comply, or imprison me for not complying. ( Assuming the shooting does not commence. )


If you're willing to use force, why should I be denied the use of force to defend myself from such aggression?

Quote by: Technosoul "Now enforced payments to a health care system (namely to a insurance company) is something worthy of debate.

It's been debated, it's not for me. I see it as a bad investment on my part.

Quote by: Technosoul Although I am not sure why you do not want affordable health care

Oh, since I disagree with the collective, I must desire the opposite?


I hope you see what a baseless claim that is? To suggest such is silly, and not really even deserving of a reply.

Quote by: Technosoul "Film maker Moore does not like that idea and thinks healthy care should be totally govenmental and not part of a profit-based business.

Yeah, that's how things are done here in the United States.


Collectives can exist here legally, all you need in people willing to participate. ( Hint, hint... )

Quote by: Technosoul You might not like it if you think that you will never need health care. You might not like poor people getting health care form such a program because you can afford to buy private coverage.

Boy, you really are comfortable filling in all the blanks with your own warped ideas, aren't you?


Again, just because I oppose your alleged "solution" doesn't mean I am opposed to the problem.

Quote by: Technosoul And most of all, do not allow anything to drive you to the brink of insanity, stay calm and debate with reason and wisdom. Or if you must, use a grumpy face or bold type. Donate to the Black Phathers or some other revolutionary group but beware, the Watts Riots did not prove to be all that successful. Nor any other such "manifesto".

Again, if you're really concerned for my mental health, get your damned politicians off of my jock, and out of my personal life.


It's not like we don't both know what the problem is.


I think you are getting ready to tell me that it's an anger management issue on my part, which will really send me off the deep end.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I qualified who the "us" is in this scenario, it is those of us who do not subscribe to your view that all must participate in these socialist collectives. The law allows you to create what they propose without coercing people who do not wish to participate, but yet the legislations drafters don't seem willing to allow anybody to opt out. That, my friend, is government force, and it's unjustified. What I want to know is why? Why can you not allow people to opt out? So, a lack of personal health insurance equals a lack of law? I'd like to see you defend that contention. I know I'm supposed to be playing the part of "drunk happy nut" in this senario, but all I am really trying to do is prevent you from being able to steal my income. Hehehe, no wonder there is such misunderstanding, and ill will in these forums, ah, they are so ripe with misunderstandings. My point was that I will stop reporting income to be taxed if they insist I join the eighty percent tax bracket. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay for the population explosion of inner city youth that is a result of this clealry revolutionary legislation. Now, when they send people to seize my property, or jail me for not being a communist, they'll be the ones using force, and they'll be the ones dealth with as the situation requires. However, don't discount the fact that this legislation could make me become much more comfortable with the idea of becoming a pirate, and looting from people who would steal from me. Why should I trade labor for a wage if I don't get to keep the wages? I'm sorry, but I just cannot believe that you respect me. If you did, you would understand how important it is that you not use government force to coerce me into a collective I do not support. Because in the end, the government will send people with guns to make me comply, or imprison me for not complying. ( Assuming the shooting does not commence. ) If you're willing to use force, why should I be denied the use of force to defend myself from such aggression? It's been debated, it's not for me. I see it as a bad investment on my part. Oh, since I disagree with the collective, I must desire the opposite? I hope you see what a baseless claim that is? To suggest such is silly, and not really even deserving of a reply. Yeah, that's how things are done here in the United States. Collectives can exist here legally, all you need in people willing to participate. ( Hint, hint... ) Boy, you really are comfortable filling in all the blanks with your own warped ideas, aren't you? Again, just because I oppose your alleged "solution" doesn't mean I am opposed to the problem. Again, if you're really concerned for my mental health, get your damned politicians off of my jock, and out of my personal life. It's not like we don't both know what the problem is. I think you are getting ready to tell me that it's an anger management issue on my part, which will really send me off the deep end.

Now you are talking logically and your concerns are worthy of concideration. I wrote a longer post but could not activate it due to a "security warning" pop up, not sure why that happened?

You have a right to say "other people's health care problem is not your problem". In simple terms I must agree.

But it is a problem for the canidates who depend on that other 80% of the population for votes. Because they are being told by those voters to do something to make health care affordable.

So how would you advise those canidates on how to solve other people's health care "cost problems" in a way so they can still get elected. Because once elected they are in charge. They cannot just ignore the situation any more then they can avoid other cost of living expendatures in a economical situation where income security is crumbling into recessionary portals.

Also how would any grass roots revolution to save us from socialism work without that other 80 percent of the population joining the crusade?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Why? Why should I have to make more cuts in my family budget to include another mandatory expendature? So I would not personally be defining what I can afford, my family budget, as it now stands intact, would define what I can afford to pay.

You pay for food, don't you? Health insurance is a service, and it has inherent value. While unfair practices should be eliminated, Aperson who has a plasma screen TV and no health insurance has no right to complain(I know some of these people) The government has every right to audit your budget if it's going to hand you money.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Technosoul "forcing your views on us" you said. Being you said "us" I must ask what collective you represent as that "us" group. How can you even dare use the term "us" if you do not like collectives? Sound more like an "us" verses "them" agenda you have, which hardly represents any discription of individualism that I know of. Is "us" the wealthy few? Is "us" the gun lobby? Is "us" the Ron Paul collective? Tell me how a country can remain in order without law? Why did the peaceful folks in some Western town go out and hire someone to bring order to their town so that the drunk happy nuts did not distroy any sense of security they so desired? Now I can see where you are really coming from, but when you suggest you might start shooting people if Democrats impose mandatory health insurance then you better get some when the Homeland Department of Security comes knocking, you will need it. Now you are a good guy and I respect that you should debate these topics, but am concerned when you use such words as shooting people because I do not want you to be pulled into some secret room for questioning. I am not trying to inject unjustified fear in you but why give them reasons to justify such action agenst you? Why become a person of interest when you can use a better choice of wording to make your case that is less threatening. Now enforced payments to a health care system (namely to a insurance company) is something worthy of debate. Although I am not sure why you do not want affordable health care unless you work for the medical industry. I do not like insurace companies as they add to the expense of medial treatment with their middle-man fees. Film maker Moore does not like that idea and thinks healthy care should be totally govenmental and not part of a profit-based business. You might not like it if you think that you will never need health care. You might not like poor people getting health care form such a program because you can afford to buy private coverage. Miserism is part of the capitalistic thinking for some people who hate compassion with a passion. So you can gripe but don't gripe by shooting people, such action would only promote ideas for more gun control regulation. A repsonsble gun owner should have anger management under control to prevent radical over-reacton. Just wait four years and vote for someone else. Prevent domestic terrroism by thinking clearly. Use a protest sign not a gun. And most of all, do not allow anything to drive you to the brink of insanity, stay calm and debate with reason and wisdom. Or if you must, use a grumpy face or bold type. Donate to the Black Phathers or some other revolutionary group but beware, the Watts Riots did not prove to be all that successful. Nor any other such "manifesto". With exception of Iraq where armed citizen revolution of occupation seems to be working. But who wants that to happen here?

Being part of a group is not being in a forced collective, first of all. (If the CIA pulled in every libertarian complaining about liberals, they'd have to outsource interrogation, plus, the CIA strikes me as a place where love of liberals is not a problem). Second of all, if you make enough money, or healthcare is provided by an employer, this coverage is not affordable, it's another chunk of my income to send to the IRS. A war is never desirable, but it's better than Tyrranny.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul Now you are talking logically and your concerns are worthy of concideration. I wrote a longer post but could not activate it due to a "security warning" pop up, not sure why that happened? You have a right to say "other people's health care problem is not your problem". In simple terms I must agree. But it is a problem for the canidates who depend on that other 80% of the population for votes. Because they are being told by those voters to do something to make health care affordable. So how would you advise those canidates on how to solve other people's health care "cost problems" in a way so they can still get elected. Because once elected they are in charge. They cannot just ignore the situation any more then they can avoid other cost of living expendatures in a economical situation where income security is crumbling into recessionary portals. Also how would any grass roots revolution to save us from socialism work without that other 80 percent of the population joining the crusade?

My advise to you is not to support people who are comfortable using force to achieve their own ends.


It's really just that simple. You are helping to create a monster that has no checks, and balances, and is therefore immune from legitimate scrutiny, or oversight.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You pay for food, don't you? Health insurance is a service, and it has inherent value. While unfair practices should be eliminated, Aperson who has a plasma screen TV and no health insurance has no right to complain(I know some of these people) The government has every right to audit your budget if it's going to hand you money.

We have applied for food stamps, still waiting to hear back from them.

The church funded food give-away program was not useful (made a post about that elsewhere).

I have garage sales to sell my stuff in an effort to deal with the cost of living which is rising. We even have a family webpage to sell stuff at www.giftsndecore,com

But so far not one sale from that site. And so an hour ago they came out and shut off our gas due to the fact I cannot afford to keep it on.
Totally my problem and not yours or anyones elses, I got old and went on social security at 600.00 dollars as a monthly income. Low because I had low paying jobs in younger years. My fault. I admit it. I rented a booth downtown to sell collectables which I buy cheap at garage sales, but it take gas to drive around looking for the bargans so I can re-sell those things at a profit. Last month I sold about $300.00 dallars worth of things but the rent on the both is $250.00 a month. The $50.00 dollars take home covered the investment in gas and what I spent to buy those bargans. The solution is I must spend about $200 a month to buy bargans so my profit margin is a lot larger then the rent for the booth. Which I will do when I can afford to do so (later). It takes money to make money in that kind of business. I can survive okay without gas unitlites because I have electric power on with no danger of loosing that utility. Microwave, bar b que, fireplace, etc. And in hot weather a cold shower is refreshing. I personally have no health care concerns and SS has medicare. So it is not in fact my problem that other people cannot get insurance. I guess I just feel sorry for them.

Welfare rip off is a big problem and so it must be monitored as you said, I must agree. And that was not my objection.

How many people in America? How long would it take to review everyones family budget? To check to see if they have a wide screen TV to pawn off?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Exactly, socialized medicine is inefficient.

[Winter wind]

Question! is health a human right?

Doesn't general welfare include health?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Health can never be guaranteed so no it is not a human right. otherwse we'd blame someone for infringing our rights when we randomly get the flu or colon cancer.

General welfare does include health but i don't see t as the government's job to become despotic in an effort to solve every problem the populace has.

[Morality Games]

My advise to you is not to support people who are comfortable using force to achieve their own ends. It's really just that simple. You are helping to create a monster that has no checks, and balances, and is therefore immune from legitimate scrutiny, or oversight.

Libertarians would fight to the death to protect the right of corporations who adopt health standards so lax people die from food poisoning to be free from government interference (standard setting), but are prepared to murder anyone who would suggest the state implement a policy that would empower individuals by relieving them of the crippling burden of health care expenses so vast they can make no progress through life or care for illnesses to expensive to heal under the curent system?

How is that consistent with individualism? The market is as much an artifical, soulless organism as the state, more than capable of oppressing "that lone individual struggling against the odds." However, the state has an investment in the longterm well-being of the community, whereas the market is a collection of splintered factions with no vision beyond their own profit and survival.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Health can never be guaranteed so no it is not a human right. otherwse we'd blame someone for infringing our rights when we randomly get the flu or colon cancer. General welfare does include health but i don't see t as the government's job to become despotic in an effort to solve every problem the populace has.

Of course the gov should not try to solve every problem, a lot of things can be solved without their help anyway.

But.... health care is different then "every problem" because it is a "major problem" for thousands of people and especially those with low income or no income.

People might have car problems that need fixing, the government would not provide aid for that because correcting that problem is not mandatory. A health problem can be because it can represent and clear and present danger that can kill you. To say you do not have a right to that line of defense is like unto taking away your guns, the police department, and our military.

If you cannot afford a gun we will give you a policeman for free. Because defense is what the government supposed to provide the citizens. If you join the army do you buy your own gun or does the governent supply you one? That is what health care is for, defending our self from a common enemy.

They have laws that prevent us from self-medicating, we cannot by free will choice go to the store and buy prescription drugs. We cannot import cheaper drugs from Canada legally, we cannot practice medicene on each other without being authorized to do so in a legal way.

All those laws created to secure the authority of the medical industly has left us legally helpless to do it our self unless we can afford to go to doctor school and get a degree. Such was not the case back when George Washington was President but such is the case nowadays.

What the point is here, is that it will become mandatory for health insurance providers to supply everyone with affordable coverage as a means for self protection. And mandatory that everyone support that idea by paying what they can for that program, just like you now pay for a military, a police and fire department.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: God's mercenary Health can never be guaranteed so no it is not a human right. otherwse we'd blame someone for infringing our rights when we randomly get the flu or colon cancer.

Situation: guy gets shot in front of you. He's alive but not for long if he doesn't get help. Now you didn't infringe on his rights, but as he's bleeding out onto the pavement, does he have the right to expect you to call 911 or administer CPR?

General welfare does include health but i don't see t as the government's job to become despotic in an effort to solve every problem the populace has.

Sure it doesn't. But when medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, the government isn't doing enough to promote the general welfare.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Technosoul Of course the gov should not try to solve every problem, a lot of things can be solved without their help anyway. But.... health care is different then "every problem" because it is a "major problem" for thousands of people and especially those with low income or no income. People might have car problems that need fixing, the government would not provide aid for that because correcting that problem is not mandatory. A health problem can be because it can represent and clear and present danger that can kill you. To say you do not have a right to that line of defense is like unto taking away your guns, the police department, and our military. If you cannot afford a gun we will give you a policeman for free. Because defense is what the government supposed to provide the citizens. If you join the army do you buy your own gun or does the governent supply you one? That is what health care is for, defending our self from a common enemy. They have laws that prevent us from self-medicating, we cannot by free will choice go to the store and buy prescription drugs. We cannot import cheaper drugs from Canada legally, we cannot practice medicene on each other without being authorized to do so in a legal way. All those laws created to secure the authority of the medical industly has left us legally helpless to do it our self unless we can afford to go to doctor school and get a degree. Such was not the case back when George Washington was President but such is the case nowadays. What the point is here, is that it will become mandatory for health insurance providers to supply everyone with affordable coverage as a means for self protection. And mandatory that everyone support that idea by paying what they can for that program, just like you now pay for a military, a police and fire department.

I oppose those laws that benefit corporations unfairly just as much as I oppose Socialized medecine. The point is, why should someone be forced to pay into a system that they may neither need nor want. We pay for military, police and fire, because these institutions protect all equally, and by owning property in a town of the U.S. we gain some benefit from them. but taxing people who will likely see little gain is quite another matter.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Situation: guy gets shot in front of you. He's alive but not for long if he doesn't get help. Now you didn't infringe on his rights, but as he's bleeding out onto the pavement, does he have the right to expect you to call 911 or administer CPR?

Morally, certainly, legally maybe, but calling 911 is quite different from saying he has a right to reach into my wallet to pay for the surgery.

Sure it doesn't. But when medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States, the government isn't doing enough to promote the general welfare.

Agreed, the unfair benefits to the healthcare coporations should be repealed.