No Health Insurance? Go Directly to Jail.

Peter Suderman | November 7, 2009

As the House moves forward with debate on its trillion-dollar-plus health care bill today, it's worth remembering what's at stake: The House bill would give the government the power to require that every individual buy health insurance, pay a penalty for choosing not to comply—or potentially be sent to jail.

Now, jail isn't a certainty; depending on the infraction, fines are also an option. And, looked at another way, all this really means is that the government  continues to retain the authority to lock up those who don't pay their taxes. But still, this is a stark reminder that when liberals talk about "health care as a right," what they really mean is "health insurance as a requirement."

Comments

healthscarequotes|11.7.09 @ 1:02PM|#

in unrelated news, roman polanski gives underage girls a pubic option

Suki|11.7.09 @ 2:31PM|#

He did have the highest quality Champaign and pills. Not cheap beer and meth.

|11.14.09 @ 11:28PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

PSP ISO|7.7.10 @ 11:20AM|#

PSP ISO is the best place to get free psp games .

MNG|11.7.09 @ 1:02PM|#

And ironically in jail you will get free treatment...

|11.7.09 @ 5:32PM|#

No, actually you'll be left to rot. Don't even call that "health care," what you're likely to get in jail.

Zon|11.7.09 @ 6:09PM|#

Most of the time they'll bill you anyways for medical treatment.

Hard Case|11.8.09 @ 12:09AM|#

Specifically, you'll get free AIDS to help treat this wretched disease known as your life.

You owe a rooster to Asclepius, prison beyatch! Now squeal, boy, squeal!

Paul|11.8.09 @ 3:58AM|#

It's not ironic at all. It's where the government would prefer us. Herded into a camp, all of our behaviors controlled, and properly educated. With free healthcare! Liberty brought to you by Democrats.

wheretofromhere|11.10.09 @ 5:08PM|#

but the treatment in jail is always substandard...oops, forgot...it's government provided, duh!

Joel|11.7.09 @ 1:05PM|#

No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.

MatTrue|11.8.09 @ 1:40AM|#

True dat.

Nancy Pelosi|11.7.09 @ 1:05PM|#

This hurts me more than it hurts you, America. Remember that I'm doing this for your own good. You'll thank me for it later.

The Children™|11.7.09 @ 7:36PM|#

Thanks, Nancy! On behalf of The Children™, we appreciate your selfless pursuit of the reaming of future Americans on our behalf! We know you won't be able to pay for it, but that's another day! A Brighter Day For All Americans!™ Fuck the future. Live for today!

|11.7.09 @ 8:57PM|#

Hey Nancy,
Does your new bill entitle my old lady to a free set of porn star tits like yours? If so, count me in.

Nancy Pelosi|11.7.09 @ 11:59PM|#

Not officially yet, but you can be sure that within five years or so, court rulings will ensure that all breast implants will be deemed medically necessary. Sex-change operations, too, of course. And we won't discriminate against illegal aliens, either: the USA does not have nearly enough transsexuals, and we expect this bill to lure them here from all over the world!

*|11.8.09 @ 4:15PM|#

Don't forget lyposuction for Hillary's thunder thighs...Bill's, too.

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 1:11PM|#

I'd just like to take a moment to personally thank Reason magazine for leading the way in their coverage and bringing to light the 2,000 plus Pelosi health care bill.

Yes, I'm being completely 100% sarcastic here. If enacted, this will be the most sweeping piece of big government legislation we've seen in years, and Reason's coverage of it has been a complete embarrassment and a joke.

Joel|11.7.09 @ 1:15PM|#

Right. It's Reason's fault.

24AheadDotCom|11.7.09 @ 5:04PM|#

It's not Reason's fault, but only because few care what they think.

However, there's a difference between coverage and activism; I offer plenty of the former and I try - without help from others - to engage in the latter. However, Reason can't even do that. They think that one whining post and one chintzy video after the other are going to have an impact, and obviously it doesn't.

Reason isn't alone: the TeaPartiers, major r/w bloggers, and r/w pundits have failed.

The solution is asking politicians tough questions on video. If someone doesn't support that plan, either they're corrupt or they're - frankly - too stupid to understand the difference between my plan and cable TV food fights.

Anonymous|11.7.09 @ 5:08PM|#

The solution is asking politicians tough questions on video.

The solution is to stop treating government like it has any legitimacy that it claims to have, and only what you grant it. But that doesn't seem to go over well with people who shun self defense and voluntary economic transactions.

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 5:45PM|#

The solution is asking politicians tough questions on video.

Several weeks ago some dude stood up and asked Pelosi to please site where in the Constitution Congress was empowered to run a health care system or to force people to buy health insurance. Would you like to know what her answer was? It was, "Are you serious?" You know - as if anyone could expect a member of the government to have to go by the Constitution or show the authorization for their crap.

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 5:46PM|#

cite, damn it.

smartass sob|11.8.09 @ 8:34PM|#

Here's a link to the specific instance to which I referred.

24AheadDotCom|11.7.09 @ 5:56PM|#

Let me refer you to the "too stupid to understand the difference between my plan and cable TV food fights" part of my comment.

Instead of "dudes", just find a friggin' lawyer. They know how to do things the right way, and that doesn't involve asking stupid questions. If you want to get out of her what the "dude" was trying to get, you have to do things in a smarter way just like a lawyer would do in a court room or similar.

In a country of 300+ million people, apparently I'm the only person who can figure that out.

Sean Healy|11.8.09 @ 8:00AM|#

You know that's not how the Constitution works, right? It doesn't have to explicitly anticipate every action a government might take and then approve it for it to be legal. It creates the parameters for governing and sets up a framework for the relationship of the citizen to the state. Making health insurance compulsory might violate the Constitution's provisions, but I don't see exactly how running a health care system does. We may wish it were so, but that doesn't mean it is.

Rob|11.9.09 @ 9:53AM|#

Have you read the Constitution? 9th amendment, perhaps? It actually does say that only the actions outlined are legal.

Episiarch|11.7.09 @ 6:18PM|#

The solution is asking politicians tough questions on video.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, LoneMoron, how can you be this self-unaware? You're like comedy gold, except for the gold part.

juris imprudent|11.7.09 @ 6:54PM|#

Ah, but the best part was LW putting down Reason for having so little influence while he continues to peddle his pathetic website and views here.

His irony is more delicious then his tears.

|11.7.09 @ 7:01PM|#

Despite your never-ending scorn for Lonewhoever, nobody here ever seems able to say that Reason makes any kind of difference, or that clique-ish thread-hoarding by snarks is in any way a viable instrument for promoting change. If Reason is not an instrument for promoting change, then what, exactly, do they do? It used to be clear, nowadays, not so much.

|11.7.09 @ 9:10PM|#

There aren't a whole hell of a lot of organizations with enough pull to make a difference in a game this big. The majority of people in this country are against this health care bill and that's not enough to stop it, so I don't see how it's reasonable to expect a nonprofit org not named NRA or AARP to hold it up.

Reason has made quite a difference in smaller arenas. Look at the difference Balko's work has made in the Cory Maye and Stephen Hayne cases, for instance.

|11.7.09 @ 10:03PM|#

I'm down with that, Tulpa, the baby step approach. Big change brought on by (non-existent) big libertarianism wouldn't be very libertarian, I suppose. Antithetical to smallness, and whatnot.

I think of organizations like FFRF (The Freedom From Religion Foundation), which with a lean operating budget and a host of lawyers who care, is waging aggressive legal battles (and winning some of them) against the entrenchment of church's marriage to the state. Many of these efforts completely complement efforts to protect the inviolable rights of individuals.

A Powell suggests that perhaps Reason is about entertainment, political entertainment? H&R most definitely, but surely not the Foundation itself. It's just not often very clear what they do. I can explain to friends in a single sentence what The Freeman (and FEE) does, but I require a whole lot of words and qualifiers to explain what Reason and its Foundation do.

Perfect example. Clearly, Jacob Sullum is the Jedi Master of knowledge pertaining to the war on drugs. What does he do with that extraordinary intellectual treasure chest? Is he out here in California testifying on behalf of those in support of Tom Ammiano's weed decriminalization efforts? It's hard to say (I admit that I don't read EVERYTHING Reason does, so Sullum might be light-sabering everyone in Sacramento for all I know). Maybe I just don't get it.

|11.7.09 @ 10:38PM|#

It's not a matter of ideology or choice that the battles fought and/or won by libertarian interests are small. It's due to two inescapable facts:

1. Advancing libertarian interests necessarily means reducing the power of the people who've spent their lives accumulating it.

2. By and large the American people have full stomachs and comfortable lives, and for all their pissing and moaning about how awful their elected representatives are, don't want to rock the boat by voting for a truly new direction, and endanger the comforts that the familiar cast of characters has given them.

So you're not going to have the cooperation of the people in power in promoting libertarian change, and you're not going to have the cooperation of the vast majority of voters. These are not problems that can be solved by a clear mission statement. But hey, if you think Reason should emulate organizations whose primary concern is lowering the ratio of angels to reindeer at town square Christmas displays, by all means make that argument. You needn't expect the rest of us to take you seriously.

|11.8.09 @ 12:05AM|#

The embedded tyranny of religion in government is a threat to your individual rights, so I dismiss your reindeer remark as typical H&R showmanship (I believe you get a +1 or +2 -- I haven't checked the rule book). And your casual use of "us" is mere cliquery. You (and whoever else constitutes "us") don't own the concept of seriousness.

The mockery of ideas and institutions that you find frivolous is not the same as the mockery of ideas and institutions that are misguided and dangerous. The confusion of the two is a constant problem around here.

Perhaps the problem with Reason (since this is not about "us") is that it lacks precision and focus. Have a good one, Tulpa.

|11.7.09 @ 9:20PM|#

What exactly? Well you spent time on this site as evidenced by your post. Were you entertained?

juris imprudent|11.8.09 @ 1:16PM|#

WERE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

|11.14.09 @ 11:26PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

People Power Hour|11.7.09 @ 1:17PM|#

In actuality, Reason's coverage has been better than most. I'm not sure what you'd have them do; maybe go door-to-door with leaflets or something? Jeez....

Fist of Etiquette|11.7.09 @ 1:22PM|#

One hundred percent means that entire thing is sarcasm. Doesn't that make his comment like a double negative or something? I think he was actually praising Reason's coverage.

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 1:22PM|#

Sorry, but I'm a little pissed off. This site is supposed to be one of the stalwarts of defending our freedom, and I come here all the time and every day most of the writers are prattling on and on about nonsense like Ayn Rand and Sarah f*cking Palin while the remaining vestiges of our freedom are getting burned down to the ground before our very eyes.

|11.7.09 @ 1:37PM|#

Reason has had a ton of health care bill coverage. Are you complaining because they covered other topics? That's just ludicrous. This isn't a health care policy blog.

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 1:59PM|#

Reason has had a ton of health care bill coverage.

What rubbish. There's been one guy here who has devoted any attention to this debate, and he's a freaking mealy-mouthed lefty who wants to see the legislation passed for crying out loud.

The Libertarian Guy|11.7.09 @ 2:32PM|#

Hmm... sounds like Ed Schultz.

hmm|11.7.09 @ 4:36PM|#

I do not. Take that back.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 1:42PM|#

I was referring to "a freaking mealy-mouthed lefty" mentioned by Mike M.

Suki|11.7.09 @ 2:33PM|#

Are you canceling your subscription or not? I am having a drink anyway.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 3:37PM|#

What subscription?

BTW, I took the phrase "mealy-mouthed lefty" away from the original user, and applied it to an actual creature of said proportions. I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here.

I had my drinks last night, for the record, whilst listening to the new Living Colour album. Good shit, yo.

And so was the smoke. But I did not inhale. Wink.

Chad|11.7.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Yes, we are so unfree. I mean, there are so many things I want to do that are illegal, like...errr...hmmm...

Oh, I know. Spend EVERY LAST PENNY I manage to get my hands on on ME ME ME ME ME. Clearly, that is such a massive abridgement of my freedom. I don't know how I will survive.

|11.7.09 @ 4:28PM|#

Faster than a knee jerk.
More powerful than party loyatly.
Able to leap chasms of reasoning in a single assumption.

Look, up in the sky!
It's a dodo.
It's a V-22 Osprey.
It's StooperChad!

Yes, it's StooperChad: idiot visitor from another reality who came to Hit and Run with mental abilities far below those of mortal men.
...

Good with the breathing tax, huh?

bmp1701|11.7.09 @ 5:01PM|#

Like...erm...hmmm...getting blown by a hooker while snorting cocaine and admiring a collection of diamond-encrusted Uzis? That's illegal, and it sounds like fun.

Chad|11.7.09 @ 8:53PM|#

I am all for allowing coke, hookers, and diamond-encrusted weapons. Not Uzis, though.

Note that restrictions on coke and hookers have nothing to do with the types of freedom we are arguing about, but are rather moralistic restrictions brought by the political right.

bmp1701|11.7.09 @ 9:49PM|#

1. The banning of coke and hookers are bipartisan issues. The right thinks they're immoral, the left cheerfully embraces this position in a shameless attempt to grab votes (Joe Biden, Drug Warrior Extraordinaire). Additionally, judging by the lefty fury directed against smoking, many leftists have no problems banning drug use for your own good.

2. The Uzis are non-negotiable. Unless you're willing to exchange them for mint-condition MG42s.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 1:45PM|#

"I am all for allowing coke, hookers, and diamond-encrusted weapons. Not Uzis, though."

But you aren't for allowing us to drive what cars we choose, what foods we eat, or where we smoke, or what we listen to/choose not to listen to on "the public airwaves"... et cetera.

Liberals are only pro-choice on abortion and homosexuality, though I am not passing judgment on either of those activities here - just pointing it out for everyone.

Chad|11.8.09 @ 3:00PM|#

You can drive pretty much whatever car you chose, as long as you are willing to pay for ALL the costs you inflict upon everyone else. You have never been required to do such, nor even close.

(I say "pretty much" because we will have restrictions on size, weight, the mounting of diamond-encrusted Uzis, etc)

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 3:40PM|#

Oh, that's rich, Chad. You fucking enviroweenies want us to drive Smart cars and other horseshit, because the planet is supposedly in peril.

And who is pushing the ideas of "fat taxes" and bans on trans-fats and other unnecessary nanny crap? Hint: It ain't us Reasonoids.

BTW, where's my sandwich? What's yours is mine, remember, because what's mine is yours, according to your communitarian pabulum.

Extra bacon, bitch.

|11.9.09 @ 12:27PM|#

Ever read Road & Track? It constantly rates cars that cannot be sold in the US due to requirements such as the 5 mph bumper and air bags, the absence of which I do not think inflicts costs on anyone else. Emissions standards (I don't think they are even laws) also preclude the sale of many fine automobiles. Of course, Americans can pay for these vehicles to be modified to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars; but yeah, I guess if we pay the exhorbitant modifications for "inflicting these costs on others" we can drive them. Like the Aston Martin, Porsche 959, McLaren, Nissan Skyline, Lotus Elise, Ferrari F40, and MANY MANY MANY more.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 11:37AM|#

Yeah, fuck the individual... become as one with the collective.

|11.14.09 @ 11:27PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.7.09 @ 3:09PM|#

Well, part of the problem may be that nobody has any idea what is in the 2,000 page health care bill, since it was whipped together in about a week. I doubt even Nancy Pelosi knows what's in it.

|11.7.09 @ 7:10PM|#

You've nailed part of the problem. Reason's is meta-coverage of the health-care bill(s). After reading their work on the matter, I don't understand the bill(s) any better. I get more information about the toxic details of these legislative tomes from an Action Alert in Freethought Today than I do from all of Reason's coverage combined. Anybody here have any idea about the Kerry-Hatch amendment C-14? Or Section 3103(a)(1)(D) of Senate Bill 1679, which requires health insurers to reimburse for "religious or spiritual health care?" Your wages will soon enshrine faith-healing subsidies. Awesome, huh?

Nancy Pelosi|11.8.09 @ 12:03AM|#

OK, you caught us. We're pandering to the voodoo vote.

|11.8.09 @ 4:38PM|#

Ok, As a Christian Scientist, its clearly my burden to respond. We tried to opt out of this appalling bill, but for whatever reasons, it didnt happen. I mean, Jeez, why do the Amish get all the breaks?

We're a small church and letting our members opt out would have absolutely NO financial impact but since we're coerced into participating and shelling out for insurance, its only fair that we're allowed the treatment we want. Which usually runs a whopping $30 dollars a day!! Or would you rather we went for the $100,000 treatments instead??
(End of rant)

Zachary Bos|11.15.09 @ 6:17PM|#

The government isn't allowed to provide you, or the children in your care, with demonstrably ineffective healthcare. You make a good point about CS therapy being relatively affordable. Good; then you can afford to purchase the snake oil you prefer.

Paul|11.8.09 @ 4:04AM|#

Unfortunately "the most sweeping piece(s) of big government legislation" keep coming at break-neck pace.

Frankly, I can no longer keep up with them. PATRIOT act, Medicare prescription drug bill, American Structured Securities Rescue Act for a Prudent Economy, Healthcare Overhaul...

My only question as I eat my popcorn is, what's next?

|11.7.09 @ 1:16PM|#

You mean that if you don't pay your taxes, you might go to jail? YOu people are really a piece of work. "Freedom" to you is the freedom to not pay your way. lol

|11.7.09 @ 1:19PM|#

Ray, aren't you supposed to be out cruising bus stations somewhere?

|11.7.09 @ 9:03PM|#

He can't. He got caught blowing a trannny in a bathroon in Port Authority and he's under house arrest. Sucks to be you--literally.

People Power Hour|11.7.09 @ 1:20PM|#

The fines brought forth due to someone failing to be a good Statist & buy their gubmint-infested health insurance ain't quite a tax, is it? lol

|11.7.09 @ 1:35PM|#

Gee Whiz. You seem to think you're entitled to endless options to not pay for anything.

|11.7.09 @ 1:39PM|#

I should be entitled to not pay for something I'm not going to use.

|11.7.09 @ 4:51PM|#

Alright, I give up. I was too busy daydreaming of the Fist of Ettiquette jammed firmly inside my bowel, thrusting me endlessly until I.....

Uh, what? Forget whatever I said. I was under the influence.

Fist of Etiquette|11.7.09 @ 6:05PM|#

I no longer offer that medical procedure. Just another small businessman put out by an extraconstitutional government takeover of his industry.

Luckily for you, there will soon be any number of government bureaucrats ready to perform that service for you, so bend over.

|11.7.09 @ 1:50PM|#

No, actually, it's the freedom not to pay other people's way.

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 1:52PM|#

Freedom is freedom not to have pay a goddamned tax just because one is alive, slaver.

Robert|11.7.09 @ 3:26PM|#

It's not quite the same as a tax. This is a requirement to buy certain specified coverage, not from gov't (which could be done by tax), but from a 3rd party. And not as a condition for getting a license to do something, but just for being.

|11.8.09 @ 12:38AM|#

Excatly. It's an extortion from the people for the benefit of the insurers who paid millions in bribes for this atrocity.

-jcr

Fist of Etiquette|11.7.09 @ 1:17PM|#

I'm pretty sure Harry Reid told me that taxes are voluntary.

*|11.7.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Harry Reid - sounds like the name of a porn star.

Aliens (1986)|11.7.09 @ 1:22PM|#

Hudson: That's it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?

Burke: Maybe we could build a fire, sing a couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that?

Joel|11.7.09 @ 1:35PM|#

I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. Only way to be sure.

|11.7.09 @ 2:22PM|#

Hudson, this little girl survived longer than that with no weapons and no training.

Episiarch|11.7.09 @ 2:36PM|#

Well why don't you put her in charge?!?

anon|11.7.09 @ 3:22PM|#

With those things runnin' around? You can count me out. ... They're animals!

Episiarch|11.7.09 @ 4:00PM|#

The mostly come out at night...mostly.

Like Tony.

|11.7.09 @ 11:43PM|#

Express elevator to Hell: GOING DOWN!!

¢|11.7.09 @ 1:35PM|#

This can't be stopped, and its supporters can't be reasoned with, so let's take whatever pleasure we can in the last spin cycle's "This isn't a tax, racists" becoming this one's "Of course you'll go to jail for not paying this tax, racists." Then, to the death panel!

Realm of Ideas|11.7.09 @ 1:45PM|#

I think it can be stopped. There is one thing a politician cares more about than controlling your life : getting reelected. If we make it clear, in no uncertain terms that their political careers will be over if they vote for this we can defeat it. But we must stand united and speak with a loud, unyielding voice. I work second shift so I have been calling my two senators and my house rep every weekday at 9AM like clockwork for quite a while now. The poor secretaries know my voice. But I must, and others must. If we do this we can defeat this. Please, do not give up. Liberty can win the day.

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 2:12PM|#

I think it can be stopped. There is one thing a politician cares more about than controlling your life: getting reelected.

Usually true, but the Dems know full well that America doesn't want this bill passed, and they don't care a whit. They're going to do what they want.

The only thing that could realistically stop this insane government at this point would be massive civil disobedience on a scale of tens of millions of people. This of course is a pipe dream, so we're totally screwed.

The Libertarian Guy|11.7.09 @ 2:18PM|#

It wouldn't necessarily take tens of millions of people, or even a million, if the civil disobedience were sufficiently a) civil and b) noticeable.

Then again, some people think tea parties = terrorism, and Code Pink protests = good and just, so such are the times in which we live. Orwell rolls in his grave.

Realm of Ideas|11.7.09 @ 3:35PM|#

What if a bunch of people got onto the floor of the House of Representatives and refused to leave. Refused to let the House members even vote. Just sit on the floor itself. Anyone who needs to relieve himself could use the speaker's podium. How would the media react to that?

prolefeed|11.7.09 @ 6:49PM|#

They have a Sergeant-At-Arms, and radios to call police. You wouldn't get to the floor.

Suki|11.7.09 @ 7:13PM|#

What?

prolefeed|11.7.09 @ 6:49PM|#

They have a Sergeant-At-Arms, and radios to call police. You wouldn't get to the floor.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 11:39AM|#

Code Pink can get away with shit like that.

robc|11.9.09 @ 9:00AM|#

Could do what the Tennesseans did over the proposed income tax a few years ago. Surround the capital, make enough noise that they hear you inside, make the reps go thru a gauntlet of protesters to get in or out of the building, etc.

A couple of hundred thousand people permanently circling the capital would make an impact.

prolefeed|11.7.09 @ 6:48PM|#

There isn't the slightest chance anyone who allegedly represents me in Congress will vote against whatever monstrosity of a bill gets to their chamber. They are all hardcore statists.

Realistically, this is the case for the overwhelming majority of people. Unless you live in a swing state or district, the incumbent can ignore you.

|11.7.09 @ 3:11PM|#

Oh the house bill won't be stopped, but it will die in the senate. Reid has already signaled it may not get a vote before Christmas.

Realm of Ideas|11.7.09 @ 3:32PM|#

I used to think so. But with talk of reconciliation I do not think we can risk it. We must make sure it does not even get to the Senate. We must defeat it in the House if at all possible.

|11.7.09 @ 1:36PM|#

You people are a bunch of idiots. Hardcore.

|11.7.09 @ 1:53PM|#

Here's an idea, then. Why don't you stop coming to this site? I don't go to progressive/liberal sites because I've heard all their arguments and I know it would just get my blood boiling.

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 1:55PM|#

Fuck you, Butlers

Butters|11.7.09 @ 2:04PM|#

Aww, hamburgers. I cant whistle if I eat too many crackers.

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Apparently you can't spell your own handle correctly either, halfwit.

www.southparkstudios.com|11.7.09 @ 2:24PM|#

Butters: Are you sure this is a good idea?

Cartman: It's NOT a good idea, It's an AWESOME idea.

The Libertarian Guy|11.7.09 @ 2:00PM|#

We're idiots because we don't want health care ladled out like gruel? Or because we want to pay for our OWN care, and not for others?

Mind if we drop by your house and demand you make us sandwiches? We can bring armed goons with government badges, in case you don't comply.

Oh, and trim the crusts off those sandwiches while you're at it.

ReAnimator|11.7.09 @ 2:42PM|#

Stupid fucking selfish American! Sandwiches are a right! There are 46 million Americans without sandwiches right now, and in a country as wealthy as ours, well that is just plain unacceptable.

*|11.7.09 @ 2:58PM|#

Don't worry - gubmint's gonna feed 'em some shit sammiches.

Suki|11.7.09 @ 2:35PM|#

Would you rather live in Gaza or with Ray Butlers?

|11.7.09 @ 6:23PM|#

Do we *have* to choose?

prolefeed|11.7.09 @ 6:51PM|#

Let's give him a one-way ticket to Gaza so we don't have to choose.

Suki|11.7.09 @ 7:21PM|#

That was all win pro.

anonymous|11.7.09 @ 8:48PM|#

He won't get government health care in Gaza. Maybe Cuba or North Korea, for a win/win?

|11.9.09 @ 1:07PM|#

BOBO

Colin|11.7.09 @ 1:55PM|#

Now, jail isn't a certainty; depending on the infraction, fines are also an option.

And what do you think will happen if you refuse to pay the "fines"?

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 2:25PM|#

And what do you think will happen if you refuse to pay the "fines"?

The IRS will come get your bank balance or any property you own. If you don't have anything, they will wait until you do - even if they have to wait until it is time to draw your Social Security someday. Medicare and Social Security are both broke or about to go broke and this just amounts to revenue enhancement for those programs. Essentially it's another bailout.

The Libertarian Guy|11.7.09 @ 2:35PM|#

I would burn my house down if the IRS came for it. Fuck them, I'll salt the ground where the house once stood while I'm at it.

Chad|11.7.09 @ 3:45PM|#

Ahh, both greedy AND spiteful. Such glorious attributes will clearly draw the legions to your winning arguments.

You sure are the quintessential poster boy for the libertarian mindset.

*|11.7.09 @ 3:57PM|#

Smart people do not waste time and breath arguing with a pack of damned thieves. You ought to cart your socialist ass back to Japan, since you think it's so much more "civilized" than this country.

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 4:08PM|#

Ahh, both greedy AND spiteful.

Who's really greedy - he who wishes to keep the fruits of his own labor - or he who wishes to steal those fruits from the labor of others? You're the one who is greedy, dude - you want to consume more than what you produce. The only way to do that is to get it from others.

Chad|11.7.09 @ 4:12PM|#

No, one is greedy when they fail to realize that most, if not all, of the "fruits of thier labor" are actually fruits of a system much greater than them and to which they owe a nearly bottomless debt.

And actually, smartass, I make a fair bit of money and will be paying out my verysmartass if the policies I call for are adopted. I don't advocate what is best for me personally, but what I believe is right. I know that is a bit difficult for you to comprehend, but please try.

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 5:03PM|#

No, one is greedy when they fail to realize that most, if not all, of the "fruits of thier labor" are actually fruits of a system much greater than them and to which they owe a nearly bottomless debt.

That's tribalist bullshit. The "system" is not greater than its individual components. Your system as you call it, or "Society" is nothing more than a collection of individuals going about their business - the aggragate of myriad dealings and transactions between either two or an infinite number. It is not an organic whole to which one can owe anything, simply for the reason that everyone is one of those individuals - it would be like saying that everyone owes something to himself. Of course, you are trying to say that everyone is indebted to everyone else except oneself, even if the system comprises only two members. I will decide for myself what it is I owe myself and what, if anything, I owe to others, thankyou very much. I know that is a bit difficult for you to comprehend, but please try.

Shannon Love|11.7.09 @ 5:33PM|#

So the fact that people cooperate with one another means that everyone is the property of the state? Let me guess, you'd be upset if I pointed out that that belief is the core idea of both Fascism and Communism.

We do all work together to produce our mutual wealth but that doesn't translate into a moral or practical argument for using the real-world political system to apportion that wealth. A better system in most cases is to allow people to negotiate they relative benefit of each transaction voluntarily without having

And actually, smartass, I make a fair bit of money and will be paying out my verysmartass if the policies I call for are adopted.

You mean more than you contribute to charity now or do you image you will simply switch you charitable donation to the government? From you argument you clearly feel that many people contributed your own personal wealth but do not now get a fair share of your personal wealth. I mean you do donate a significant percentage of your income don't you?

If not, why do you have to wait for the government to do right thing?

|11.7.09 @ 6:24PM|#

There is a difference between freely given charity and enslavement.

|11.7.09 @ 6:50PM|#

Does "Chad" really exisit. Maybe he is a figment reading lines out of Atlas Shrugged. He sounds like James Taggart or one of the other leaders who demands we all give our all for the good of the people...people as represented by government bureaucrats, of course.

juris imprudent|11.7.09 @ 7:01PM|#

According to Chad, I owe my soul to the society store.

Patriot Henry|11.8.09 @ 11:42AM|#

"No, one is greedy when they fail to realize that most, if not all, of the "fruits of thier labor" are actually fruits of a system much greater than them and to which they owe a nearly bottomless debt. "

Collectivist claptrap, which is the tired old lie that the many can steal from the few when in reality it's the few who steal from the many. Rangel and Pelosi and all the rest get fat paychecks fat benefits and unimaginable kickbacks and bribes while the many eat oatmeal or McDonalds. They feast while we starve; they live while we sleep.

Why would I or anyone else owe a debt for goods and services we didn't demand and only take under the threat of a cage or the gun?

"And actually, smartass, I make a fair bit of money and will be paying out my verysmartass if the policies I call for are adopted. I don't advocate what is best for me personally, but what I believe is right. "

You done screwed up. Got a plan as to how you'll pay more than you earn for this, plus the global wars, plus the domestic wars, plus the old pyramid schemes of Social Security Medicare Medicaid and public education, etc etc etc plus all of the debt incurred for this unequaled crime spree?

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 11:55AM|#

I make a whopping nine bucks an hour. My slightly-retarded brother works, and helps with the expenses. What we buy with it (mostly paying bills and buying frivolous shit like groceries and gas), is his and is mine, you damned betcha.

What the fuck else do you want from me? I'm one of those poor people you're SUPPOSED to give a fuck about, yet you want my meager paycheck to be pie-sliced yet again to pay for a health-care boondoggle which I do not want to be a part of. Can I opt out, or am I going to be carted off to the pokey if I can't be forced to pay extra for what I don't want?

Chad, I have a net worth of MAYBE $200K. I own a house, two 1993-era cars, and some stuff. What the fuck else do you want from me? What am I not paying now, that I should be forced to pay?

But, hey, your comrade Tony thinks food should be free, so maybe I could just snack on government cheese AND pay for health care I don't want because I'm not entitled to it.

Get that last part, genius: I don't want it because I am not entitled to it. Despite your tortured misreading of the "general welfare" clause, nobody is entitled to entitlements.

Hell, my brother has the mind of a ten-year-old, but even HE won't take SSDI. He wants to work for a living. So even a "retard" can understand why living on the dole, when one CAN work and pay their own way, is in no shape or form "selfish".

But fuck it, you want the IRS to be able to reach into our bank accounts and possibly seize our property, if we can't/won't pay for involuntary servitude via whatever health-care scheme is dreamed up by your comrades in D.C.

And you purport to be the sensible one. What a goddamned laugh.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 11:56AM|#

That was for Chad, and Tony, and all the other collectivist daydreamers. Shoulda put that that in the header. Need more coffee, before it becomes illegal.

Chad|11.8.09 @ 3:03PM|#

LibbyGuy, do you realize that the averaged unskilled worker today has about ten times the income of an unskilled worker when this country was founded? NINETY PERCENT of what you think you are earning is actually a result of the system that allows you to make so much. You probably aren't paying squat for taxes, less than 10% even when you figure in excise, property and sales taxes. The nickles and dimes you are paying back to the system are dwarfed by what it is providing you. Quit whining if it asks for a quarter or two.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 3:42PM|#

True, but you people want more out of MY pocket for shit I *don't* want.

All I want is defense and basic infrastructure. I don't deserve anything else.

BTW, what's your welfare footprint? Mine's pretty light, despite your protestations.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Oh, and BTW... Lord Obama said "no tax increases on anyone making under a quarter-million a year".

You trying to make a liar out of Him?

Why do you want to fuck the poor, Chad?

smartass sob|11.8.09 @ 5:48PM|#

NINETY PERCENT of what you think you are earning is actually a result of the system that allows you to make so much.

Yeah? Seventy-five to ninety percent of one's income goes to pay taxes of one kind or another, too. What percentage of the price one pays for goods and services is actually taxes, license fees, permits, yada yada yada, that have been passed on down to the final consumer? Probably anywhere from fifty to seventy-five percent. And in my state the sales tax is eight and a quarter percent on everything but food. Before any of that there are Federal employment and payroll taxes of nearly fifteen percent on any earned income of $400 or more - that's before and in addition to any income tax owed.
And after all the taxes and basic living expenses, if one does manage to set aside some savings, the bloodsucking fuckers in DC will destroy the purchasing power of it with their inflationary monetary policies, because they want to spend more revenue than they bring in. If one invests those savings in something to avoid inflation, he gets to pay a damned tax on that, too. Not paying "squat for taxes?" You ignoramus, you haven't a clue!

smartass sob|11.8.09 @ 5:52PM|#

Oh, and one other thing: even thought the average unskilled worker might make more than ten times what one made when the country was founded, the damned dollar today is worth less than one tenth of what it was just one hundred years ago.

Tony|11.7.09 @ 4:56PM|#

And you want all the benefits of a society that allows you to enjoy the fruits of your labor without having to pay anything to sustain it. Libertarians are such moochers.

Michael Ejercito|11.7.09 @ 5:12PM|#

How have Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, and Pedro Navarro-Oregon benefited from society?

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 5:12PM|#

And you want all the benefits of a society that allows you to enjoy the fruits of your labor...

Allows, Tony? Don't you really mean "allows me to live?" I don't need your permission or that of Society. There ain't gonna be much of a Society and damned few benefits without the fruits of my labor and the labor of others who actually make your precious Society possible.

Chad|11.7.09 @ 8:54PM|#

Without society, your average life expectancy would probably have been less than your current age.

smartass sob|11.8.09 @ 7:44AM|#

And without commie slavers like you it would probably have been alot more.

|11.8.09 @ 12:09AM|#

Tony, libertarians aren't anarchists. I believe the average libertarian is willing to pay some taxes. If you're looking for moochers, the Democratic party is filled with them. Go look over there.

Patriot Henry|11.8.09 @ 12:37PM|#

"And you want all the benefits of a society that allows you to enjoy the fruits of your labor without having to pay anything to sustain it. Libertarians are such moochers. "

Society charges for it's goods and services. Ever notice that everything isn't "free"? Ever notice the price tag for goods and services?

The only exception is government goods and services, which aren't "free", but instead are paid for by stolen loot.

Libertarians pay their own way. Everyone else wants to decide how much the federal and state mafias steal, whom they steal from, and how the loot is divided, and then they want to accuse anyone who doesn't want to sanction their own victimization as being "selfish" or "greedy".

Also...if society "allows" us to enjoy the fruits of our labor, then why do we have a 60-70 percent taxation/inflation rate?

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 3:51PM|#

Ho ho, that's rich. Collectivist whining about moochers, when what HE wants is for EVERYONE to be a moocher.

What's your home address, Tony? We're gonna come over and demand fifty bucks apiece. That cable bill ain't gonna pay itself, and by your definition - since food and health care are "rights" - then EVERYTHING is a right, and we have a right to cable TV. No?

*|11.8.09 @ 6:01PM|#

Libertarians don't mind sustaining the system - they just don't care to sustain your fat, lazy ass in the style to which you'd like to become accustomed, Tony

Michael Ejercito|11.7.09 @ 5:11PM|#

Ahh, both greedy AND spiteful. Such glorious attributes will clearly draw the legions to your winning arguments.

The only greedy people are those who demand the use of other people's property.

Chad|11.7.09 @ 5:13PM|#

Again, you fail to see that every little thing you manage to get your grubby little hands on is, by divine right, solely yours in the first place.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 11:43AM|#

If I paid for it, with the fruit of my labor, it's mine. Not yours, not some stranger's.

Do you own property? Not just a house, but the stuff IN it? Or do you just let strangers wander in, sit on your couch, and eat your food?

|11.8.09 @ 12:41AM|#

You know Choad, there's nothing in the world more selfish than wanting to command other people to do your bidding. Want to know what a fascist looks like? Look in your mirror.

-jcr

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Used crankcase oil, dude, - several 55 gallon drums of it.

|11.7.09 @ 2:15PM|#

Ray Butt-lers

|11.7.09 @ 2:26PM|#

While Suderman is indeed a mealy mouthed lefty, I am not absolutely certain he would like to see the bill passed.

Jerry|11.7.09 @ 2:44PM|#

If they require me to have health insurance, I'm going to pick up smoking again.

Thoreau|11.7.09 @ 2:52PM|#

What do you guys think of this?

http://reason.com/archives/200.....urance-now

Hugh Akston|11.7.09 @ 3:47PM|#

Thoreau, that article was the first thing that came to mind when I read this post too.

|11.7.09 @ 6:26PM|#

The only difference I see is this on the 4th page "all Americans would be required to purchase a basic high-deductible catastrophic health insurance policy from a private insurance company"

Not QUITE as bad as forcing people to buy expensive plans they don't need, but still, WTF?

*|11.7.09 @ 2:53PM|#

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

But it isn't a tax, is it, Mr. President?

Kevin|11.7.09 @ 3:02PM|#

When congress passes this complete monstrosity of a health care bill, civil disobedience will rule the day. Go ahead and lock me up for making the personal choice of not carrying health insurance!

Not only will our jails continue to be filled with victims of the phony war on drugs, now it will also be filled with those of us who refuse to carry health insurance.

What a mess of a political system & country.

Super Nate|11.7.09 @ 4:41PM|#

Filled with those who buy the wrong drugs, and those that don't buy the right drugs.

Bob #2|11.7.09 @ 3:10PM|#

On a related note, what's the easiest way to make money in the markets on the federal government losing its AAA rating? Just short treasuries?

Jerry|11.7.09 @ 3:23PM|#

They'll just require health insurance companies to carry reserves in the form of treasury bills, so that losing AAA status won't have any effect on the yield.

|11.7.09 @ 5:38PM|#

You're probably on the right track. The U.S. Government might be able to force some U.S. Companies to hold Treasuries. But the Chinese and the Japanese are under no such obligation. Right now they are estimated to hold roughly two-thirds of the U.S. Federal Debt. As the printing presses start to accelerate, China and Japan will be unable or unwilling to continue buying or even holding rapidly depreciating U.S. treasuries.

Gold Bug|11.8.09 @ 12:21AM|#

Buy silver and gold. It's what everyone else will be doing.

My emphasis is on the "will be" part of that, by the way. If you buy yours now, you'll get it at a better price than they will and beat the rush.

JB|11.8.09 @ 2:34AM|#

lol. Buy guns and ammo.

You think holding a gold brick will help you?

|11.8.09 @ 4:00AM|#

"Buy guns and ammo".

Been there done that. Having trouble finding 9mm rounds.

Bad Omen

jesse|11.8.09 @ 7:44AM|#

Fuck that, just get yourself an ar-15 and buy 5.56 rounds by the thousands. I get mine from aimsurplus.com.

smartass sob|11.8.09 @ 7:51AM|#

It might - if I smash some slaver bastard in the face with it.

|11.8.09 @ 12:42AM|#

I'd look for leveraged instruments that rise with the price of gold.

-jcr

Suki|11.7.09 @ 3:12PM|#

How soon is this going to get before the Supreme Court for a constitutionality test?

Apostate Jew|11.7.09 @ 3:50PM|#

Maybe never. Filburn and Raich both lost and all they wanted to do was grow some crops for their own use.

Nancy Pelosi|11.7.09 @ 4:33PM|#

Are you serious? I had the constitution shredded to make toilet paper for my office.

Suki|11.7.09 @ 5:41PM|#

What a coincidence, my toilet paper has your picture on it!

|11.7.09 @ 6:27PM|#

You let her touch your butt? Aren't you afraid?

Suki|11.7.09 @ 7:23PM|#

One has to push their limits to truly know where their limits really are.

|11.8.09 @ 12:44AM|#

Well, there's one business opportunity. Toilet paper printed with pictures of politicians.

-jcr

smartass sob|11.8.09 @ 7:54AM|#

We'll have toilet paper printed with pictures of dead presidents soon enough.

anonymous|11.7.09 @ 3:36PM|#

So, if at -any point- in the year you don't have acceptable coverage, you get hit with a 2.5% income tax?

Like, say, you lose your job at the end of the year? And now, on top of having no insurance, also have to pay 2.5% extra of your income? And if you can't afford that, they give you a larger fine or go to jail.

I only hope, as much as I dislike the IRS, that when they inevitably utterly fuck some emotionally disturbed bastard, he takes it out on the congressional democrats rather than the bureaucrats who are just following the terribly, terribly stupid law.

Suki|11.7.09 @ 4:30PM|#

If you don't have an income the tax is not that huge. But still.

JB|11.8.09 @ 2:35AM|#

I hope it's taken out on all of them.

And slowly.

Chad|11.7.09 @ 3:43PM|#

Medicare For All. Cheaper, simpler, and better.

Oh, but that's evil SOCIALISM. Clearly, such a system would be a horrid violation of our freedom to be constantly worried about our employer dropping our coverage, or our insurer deciding that it doesn't cover whatever we thought we had been paying for for all these years, and to pay 50% more than anyone else on earth for an inferior product. I mean, who WOULDN'T want those freedoms and be willing to sacrifice dearly for them?

Hugh Akston|11.7.09 @ 3:49PM|#

As long as I can opt out of coverage and paying for it, go right ahead.

Hugh Akston|11.7.09 @ 4:04PM|#

You would be okay with that, wouldn't you Chad? Since Medicare is the obviously preferable choice, I would never want to opt out. But giving me that option at least makes it seem like there is some respect for the idea that individuals are capable of making decisions for themselves. Right?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

Chad|11.7.09 @ 4:09PM|#

You don't seem to understand the problem that makes health insurance fail epically in the free market - the ability for people to "opt out". With this ability, people "opt out" when they are healthy and then try to "opt in" when they are sick. This information asymmetry causes an extreme market failure to which no one has found a market-based solution.

However, a national system where everyone is covered all the time solves this problem completely...which is why everyone else's systems work much better than ours.

hmm|11.7.09 @ 4:28PM|#

So instead of disallowing the people who game the system by not paying and then opting in when they need help you want to mandate everyone just be a part of the system, regardless. Or how about the people that choose to roll the dice and game the system take responsibility for their actions and we don't punish the people who already are?

Chad|11.7.09 @ 4:40PM|#

How are you going to define "gaming the system" or determine who is doing it?

hmm|11.7.09 @ 5:17PM|#

Why would I define such a thing. The market defines things like that quite well. You are the one assuming you can define the sick and healthy with relation to opting in or out, or gaming the system. And that in doing so you concluded the only means to solve the problem is have all opt in. So you must believe or be able to prove that all opting in has a greater expected value than the market determining who is or is not cheating, or gaming, or what ever single term you want to use for opting in or out to an individuals benefit.

That's the beauty of markets and the utter failure of humans. Markets define complex interactions very well and very accurately. Humans think they are smart enough to do this, yet they fail over and over at doing it.

Michael Ejercito|11.7.09 @ 5:16PM|#

You don't seem to understand the problem that makes health insurance fail epically in the free market - the ability for people to "opt out". With this ability, people "opt out" when they are healthy and then try to "opt in" when they are sick. This information asymmetry causes an extreme market failure to which no one has found a market-based solution.

Well, if too many people are opting out, then health insurance is not all that good.

So why is it a problem that people are uninsured, if people are choosing to opt out of health insurance?

|11.7.09 @ 6:33PM|#

I know no such thing, because we don't have a free market for insurance or health care. My "insurance" company, which is not even insurance but more like a coop to spread payments around, holds a monopoly over my health care choices.

So how can health insurance have failed when government regulations don't even allow them to try to succeed?

There could be plenty of solutions. Real Coops, or a new organization and way of paying we haven't though of (but can't be created now due to regulation).

You make the same mistake all statists do: you have no imagination. Something doens't work now because of government interference, and you think the answer is more interference. You can't let go and let the people create their own solutions because not having control is too scary for you. You think you are smarter than the rest of the country, and it's your way or no way.

The difference is we don't think we're smarter than everyone, that is the very reason we don't believe in government solutions. All throughout history, the only times the average (poor) person has had anything was when they were free. Controlling people is an old idea, not a new or moral one.

|11.7.09 @ 6:58PM|#

You may not have noticed the Democratic plan is to force insurance companies to take preexisting conditions. This is a way to guarantee a loss for insurance companies and to guarantee another "failure of the free market system."

Michael Ejercito|11.7.09 @ 8:23PM|#

Why not force life, auto, fire, and other insurance to accept pre-existing conditions as well?

|11.8.09 @ 11:40PM|#

Hey, dudes, I just wrecked my car. I am going to need full insurance. You know the gucci package. The one that pays me a rental and all that crap. Thanks.

prolefeed|11.7.09 @ 6:59PM|#

If by "opt out" you mean "choice" and "freedom", then how is that a market failure? Or do you define failure as "oh noes, an insurance company can't persuade everyone to buy their coverage"?

juris imprudent|11.7.09 @ 7:23PM|#

Oh how cute, Chad used "information asymmetry". Incorrectly of course, but hey he TRIED!

|11.7.09 @ 10:53PM|#

Chad--
That's one of the problems with this legislation--people will pay the fine because it is cheaper than insurance until they get sick. Then, because they can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, they'll buy insurance on the way to the doctor. Have a guess as to what that does to the insurance company fund? It goes way down, because no one is paying premiums until they are needed. Thus, premiums skyrocket and we're in the same mess all over again.

|11.8.09 @ 12:49AM|#

You don't seem to understand the problem that makes health insurance fail epically in the free market - the ability for people to "opt out"

Choad, you're a fucking idiot. In a business where the biggest players have been buying all the regulations they want for decades, including the power to bar any new competitors from entering the market, that ability to opt out is the only downward pressure on insurance rates that still exists.

-jcr

ev|11.7.09 @ 4:13PM|#

Um...you do realize that Medicare is fucked right? It's running out of money, doctors don't like dealing with Medicare patients and it's a bureaucratic nightmare?

This is the most retarded thing you've ever said.

I even believe in uni-healthcare, but at least I recognize the folly that is the House bill. I have another "I told ya so" lined up.

Chad|11.7.09 @ 4:41PM|#

Medicare is a lot less fucked than private insurance, which plans on raising rates by 79% in the next ten years. How much longer do you think your boss is going to keep paying for your health insurance, even under the status quo laws?

ev|11.7.09 @ 5:31PM|#

Sigh...employers shouldn't be paying for health care at ALL....the EMPLOYEES should be.

I wouldn't let my boss buy me a pair of pants; why would I let him control my access to health care?

prolefeed|11.7.09 @ 7:03PM|#

Citation needed. You really think insurance companies can plan ten years ahead what their premiums will be?

As a former health insurance underwriter, I can assure you that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Chad|11.8.09 @ 3:05PM|#

Didn't you read the propaganda put out by the insurance industry a few weeks ago. In their hurry to slam Obamacare by pointing out how much they would have to jack rates if it passed, they admitted they estimated a 79% increase under the status quo. Talk about stupid propaganda....

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 3:44PM|#

We get stupid propaganda every day. It comes from David Axelrod's office.

|11.8.09 @ 12:21AM|#

plans on raising rates by 79% in the next ten years

Even if that comes true, compare it with Medicare, which costs something like 900% more than projected.

And why are private health insurance costs going up? How about: 1500 state mandates. Federal laws that forbid buying out-of-state insurance, restricting competition. Democrats blocking tort reform for their trial lawyer paymasters.

It's the old "progressive" game: support laws that increase the costs of doing business, then decry the resulting price increases and demand more government action.

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 4:14PM|#

Medicare Slavery For All. Cheaper, simpler, and better.

FTFY

Shannon Love|11.7.09 @ 5:42PM|#

I'm curious, if you think socialism does such a good job with medical care, why don't we extend to everything else? If the government is wise and uncorrupt enough to dictate what medical care 300 million individuals get over the course of their entire lives, why isn't it wise enough to dictate what computers/software they can use, what cars they need, what housing they need etc? For example, do you think that politicians would systematically make better decisions about what you do for living?

I don't imagine you're a communist but do you actually have any idea why you think government provides superior medical care but that it could not possible manage whatever you think government shouldn't be managing?

juris imprudent|11.7.09 @ 7:21PM|#

Medicare For All. Cheaper, simpler, and better.

Except of course for Congress and the rest of govt employees.

|11.8.09 @ 12:51AM|#

Medicare For All. Cheaper, simpler, and better.

How old are you, Choad? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy, too?

-jcr

Patriot Henry|11.8.09 @ 11:49AM|#

"Medicare For All. Cheaper, simpler, and better."

If it's cheaper, then why is there the long documented unstoppable waste corruption and inefficiency of Medicare (and Medicaid, and the Indian health care, and the VA)??? If it's simpler, why is there a massive third party called the government between the producers and consumers? If it's better, then why do so many oppose it?

"Clearly, such a system would be a horrid violation of our freedom to be constantly worried about our employer dropping our coverage, or our insurer deciding that it doesn't cover whatever we thought we had been paying for for all these years, and to pay 50% more than anyone else on earth for an inferior product. I mean, who WOULDN'T want those freedoms and be willing to sacrifice dearly for them? "

The employer based insurance system and all of it's problems are a direct result of government interference with the market. The very same government that created the system you are complaining about is the one you are trusting to make a much larger, more expensive, and more complicated system and somehow make it better than their first attempt.

Heck, it's succeeded with education (examine plummeting literacy and graduation rates), the war on drugs, terrorism, despots, and everything else. That's assuming you define "success" as "overwhelming institutionalized failure".

|11.7.09 @ 4:05PM|#

LEAVE CHAD ALONE!!!1

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 4:11PM|#

Shit, he'd perish without a host.

Joel|11.7.09 @ 4:14PM|#

Shall we pick on Cameroon for a while instead?

MNG|11.7.09 @ 4:14PM|#

Chad
Putting people in jail or fining them for not getting health insurance is the worst of all possible worlds. It's got all the coercion, the patneralism and becomes a subsidy for insurance companies, and a coerced one to boot!

Using the power of the state to force people to do business with insurance companies is a turd of a reform...

hmm|11.7.09 @ 4:30PM|#

Fuck. I need to go shower now. So dirty, agreed with MNG, so unclean. Where's the clorox?

I agree that a half ass system as you mention is worse, by multiples of infinity as far as I'm concerned, than either of the extremes of all government or no government.

MNG|11.7.09 @ 4:34PM|#

Now and in 1992 the Democrats seem hell bent on forcing the worst system of all possible worlds on us.

Don't worry hmmm, soon someone will have to add something crazy to this nice point we can all agree with, I'll belittle the poster, people can accuse me of supporting "TEH SLAVERY," etc., and we can both feel clean again ;)

|11.7.09 @ 4:41PM|#

MNG is a stinking liberal sumbitch, but he's no moron. I've found myself in agreement with him occasionally. Opposing sin taxes come right to mind.

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 12:01PM|#

I'll have to agree. MNG can, indeed, have a good idea on the occasional day.

|11.8.09 @ 11:47PM|#

we can agree with him that chattel slavery was bad too.!

prolefeed|11.7.09 @ 7:07PM|#

If this turns out anything like 1994, quite a few Democratic politicians will get their asses tossed out of office, and also not get to take over health care.

If most liberal politicians had MNGs take on this, they'd be a lot less likely to lose control of Congress.

Robert|11.8.09 @ 1:53AM|#

It was an interesting sequence. In 1992 IIRC Wofford won a big upset for US senator in PA. Or maybe it was a special election in 1993, which would've made it an even bigger focus of att'n. His big issue was health care. That led to the idea that there was a popular mandate for it. That in turn led to Hillarycare, which was a Rube Goldbergish device concocted to buy off the most influential, which led to a popular revulsion against it. I think there was then, and had been for some time, a popular mandate for socialized medicine, but fortunately the "left" can't unite behind one plan.

For all that people complain here about politics, it's the one thing that's fortunately held back socialized medicine in the USA compared to the rest of the world. People here are pretty much the same as elsewhere, and could be expected to enact more or less the same public policies, but the USA is an outlier on this score and some others. Politics is often good to us, and we ought to recognize that and celebrate it when democracy is evil and gets fucked.

Chad|11.7.09 @ 4:38PM|#

With Medicare for all, there would be none of that. It would simply be deducted from your paycheck as it currently is. The only difference is that the line for Medicare would be bigger, and the line for health insurance a lot smaller. If our system was like that of any other industrialized nation, you would be coming out way ahead.

You would lose, of course, the pathetically useless "freedom" to opt out of the plan. So what?

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 5:00PM|#

If our system was like that of any other industrialized nation, you would be coming out way ahead.

“We know that there must be change. We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands. We all agree the system is imploding; we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize.”

-Dr. Anne Doig, President - Canadian Medical Association

|11.7.09 @ 9:42PM|#

A refutation of the idea that everything is peachy in the Japanese medical world:

http://resources.metapress.com.....ze=largest

Summed up,his opinion is that the reason Japans health care is so cheap (compared to Japan's GDP) is the low wages paid to their doctors compared to other nations. It has created a bit of a crisis there in his view. I have some friends in the Japanese medical community. I remember being surprised that my wages as an enlisted military member were a bit higher than the wages of their mid-level doctors. Go figure. Of course that's anecdotal evidence, but I'm willing to bet that not one single doctor here in the US makes less than I do, at least in terms of gross salary.

A quote from Dr. Hiroaki Osada:

"Nowadays, patients are, in a sense, another part of the powers that are directly calling for even higher levels of service in our specialty, without the slightest knowledge of how we university surgeons have been treated"

Doesn't sound like the joy of universal care to me, but perhaps I'm not understanding his intent.

Cheers!

Chad|11.8.09 @ 1:14AM|#

You are right. American doctors are overpaid, especially specialists. This is due to the cartel-like AMA.

Oh, were you saying something about the Japanese? Yeah, they pay doctors similarly to other professionals with similar educations. Scientists, who DO work in a competitive market, provide a nice baseline for comparison. The number of years of education is about the same, and the only difference (in America, at least) is the loans, which can easily be accounted for. A $200,000 education loan would require ~$35000 in extra income per year amortized over a thirty year career. Now how much does a scientist make? Starting salaries are in the 70s or 80s depending on the market, mid-career is typically 100-110's. This would imply that doctors should be taking home low 100s to start and mid-100s later on. However, even non-specialists take home much more than this (high 100s being typical). Specialists make even more outrageous sums, which is why just about every med student is trying to be a specialist these days. Of course they should be paid more for having foregone income in order to further train, but we are clearly paying them too much more. Again, it isn't difficult to figure out how much extra income one would need in exchange for giving up a few years worth of income to train.

|11.9.09 @ 1:42PM|#

I lived in Japan for five years. I am a Japanese/English translator. I can tell you that the Japanese health care system is Third World at best. During the five years, I had three foreign friends living in Japan either misdiagnosed or killed by Japanese doctors. Two Aussie friends were told by doctors that they just had infections and when they went home to Oz, they found out that they had cancer. One 40 yr old American friend had appendicitis, and they gave him meds and sent him home. Later it burst, he went back to the hospital in excruciating pain and they sent him home again where he died. In Japan there are private insurers too, but you are required to have insurance, but almost everyone has the public insurance. Most foreigners who work in Japan buy private insurance through their companies, but have "Rescue and Repatriation" clauses so in case of anything serious, the insurer will pay for their travel home so they can get proper health care. My Brazilian and Bolivian friends in Japan returned to South America for medical procedures and child birth because they didn't trust Japanese health care. Japanese doctors still insist that pregnant women shouldn't use anasthetic for the pain of childbirth because it's harmful for the child, and also because it's a woman's duty to endure the pain. The doctors will flat out tell you that the pain is good for a woman's character and good for the baby. And when the cost of Japanese health care is calculated, it doesn't include the envelopes of "respect-cash" that patients and their familes hand the doctor before major procedures. Doctors are given thousands in cash to ensure that the procedures go smoothly and the patient is taken care of. It's expected to "tip" the doctor in this manner. Japanese health care is some of the crappiest I've seen in any country.

Michael Ejercito|11.7.09 @ 5:17PM|#

Why have it automatically deducted from the paycheck?

Why not let the voluntary participants choose on the method of payment?

juris imprudent|11.7.09 @ 7:25PM|#

Are you suggesting that control is really at the heart of this?

Hugh Akston|11.7.09 @ 5:34PM|#

You would lose, of course, the pathetically useless "freedom" to opt out of the plan. So what?

So, I end up paying for a service that I don't want most of the time, and won't work for my benefit when I do want it.

Patriot Henry|11.8.09 @ 11:52AM|#

"You would lose, of course, the pathetically useless "freedom" to opt out of the plan. So what? "

So you have no issue with sending me to prison for the rest of my life? Or if I decide I do not wish to go to prison for living my life, then you have no problem with killing me for resisting your imperious plan to save my life?

"Sometimes you have to kill the patient in order to save the patient"???

That's what. You are planning to put me in a cage or in a grave and think this is a trifling consequence of no significance?

|11.7.09 @ 4:20PM|#

This information asymmetry causes an extreme market failure to which no one has found a market-based solution.

Pterodactyls blandly ruminate as diminutive philosophies paint bloody sunset skies; megaliths gambol on the dewy antimacassars.

juris imprudent|11.7.09 @ 7:26PM|#

Stop making sense!

hmm|11.7.09 @ 4:25PM|#

House bill would give the government the power to require that every individual buy health insurance, pay a penalty for choosing not to comply—or potentially be sent to jail.

..sent to jail where you will receive health care whether you like it or not.

Anonymous|11.7.09 @ 4:27PM|#

`You wish to be anonymous?'

`I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. `Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

`Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'

`If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, `they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.'

`But you might know it,' observed the gentleman.

`It's not my business,' Scrooge returned. `It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!'

I found this quote used as an indictment against Rand, of all things. On the contrary, it rather illustrates a comfortableness with state-enforced slavery and the taxes which support it.

GOOOOOOO YOU DONKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYS!

MNG|11.7.09 @ 4:31PM|#

Hey anon, what's it like being crazy?
Please answer in English and not the language you've created to avoid the CIA space devices which you probably think are monitoring you're every move until you manifest your powers.

Anonymous|11.7.09 @ 4:33PM|#

Hey, thanks for being civil! And fuck your mother!

Suki|11.7.09 @ 4:35PM|#

Any response to that weirdo is useless, Anon.

MNG|11.7.09 @ 4:36PM|#

Hmm, you probably did not understand my question, let me retry:

Hello Joan of Arc/Napoleon/Jesus! I have a device which emits a low frequency beam which temporarily disrupts the messages the government sattelite sends to your brain, so can you inform me what it is like this experience of yours?

Suki|11.7.09 @ 4:34PM|#

That was really Scrooge? I like that character now.

MNG|11.7.09 @ 4:36PM|#

It's in the book A Christmas Carol Suki.

Don't worry, they have a movie version, or in your case a cartoon version.

Anonymous|11.7.09 @ 4:43PM|#

Yeah, a lot of the picture one gets of 19th-Century Britain has some very interesting politics to it. I'm often amazed they can watch and read things like Sherlock Holmes running around with a revolver without fainting.

But what one has to remember is that it was even more free and open in the American frontier at that time, with much less strange-to-me class and status crap, and just as good plumbing.

Suki|11.7.09 @ 5:36PM|#

See? MNG has no brain. He responds to my specific comment about a character in a book with the fantastic explanation that the character exists in a book and other formats.

Suki|11.7.09 @ 5:38PM|#

And he does not even know how to italicize or quote certain titles.

MNG|11.7.09 @ 4:28PM|#

If the legislation said "you have to buy private insurance or enroll in a public option or else be penalized" then I'm not sure I have a beef with it, as if you think about it that would be along the lines of Social Security, but sort of less coercive (because you could opt out).

Well, in a way you probably could not opt out, you'd still be funding the public option through your tax money, so it would be kind of like mandatory school attendance laws + public schools...

|11.7.09 @ 4:45PM|#

Let's just call it (mandatory health insurance) a breating tax and be done with it.

|11.7.09 @ 4:46PM|#

Make that "breathing tax".

Stupid fucking fingers.

TP|11.7.09 @ 4:48PM|#

What do you want for nothing?

A bow bow

Heere odda hilldidda hildhiruhah
Juuuyr adda hilldadida jigguwah
Hieere odda hittomamma jizzowazzah
Hoow bawlda hiwowiwa hiwiwah
Heere odda hilldeninne hilldennine
Hiiire odda hillimoney hilluwowahwah
Dwiire odda higgunama shuppobup
Deare odda hildumama hithuivha
Puurr onna hillimona hillduwiva

Have you ever heard of a wish sandwich? A wish sandwich is the kind of a sandwich where you have two slices of bread and you, hee hee hee, wish you had some meat...

Bow bow bow...

Hmmm... the other day I had a ricochet biscuit. a ricochet biscuit is the kind of a biscuit thats supposed to bounce back off the wall into your mouth. if it dont bounce back... heeheehee you go hungry!

Bow bow bow...

Hmmmm... the other day I had a cool water sandwich and a sunday-go-to-meetin bun...

Bow bow bow...

HmHmHmhm(heeeeh)…. Whaddayou want fuh nothin’. A rrrrrubber biscuit?

Bow Bow OoOooo

|11.7.09 @ 4:50PM|#

I think it's funny that guys like Chad can't comprehend that their precious Barack won't be president forever. They've obviously never thought about government-run healthcare, with the government in the hands of people like Dick Cheney. Maybe they think it could never happen again, or that the heroic Nancy Pelosi will save them if it does.

Naaaah.

They're not thinking about it.

Anonymous|11.7.09 @ 5:06PM|#

And you want all the benefits of a society that allows you to enjoy the fruits of your labor without having to pay anything to sustain it.

Libertarians are sometimes deaf to this argument, or deflect it by mentioning, but not explaining, voluntary cooperation. But what they need to understand is that these people are compulsory collectivists for a reason: they believe in their power as individuals to shape humanity as an entity with their will and skill of technical administration.

Everybody will be murdered, but at least the trains will run on time!

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 5:28PM|#

what they need to understand is that these people are compulsory collectivists for a reason: they believe in their power as individuals to shape humanity as an entity with their will and skill of technical administration.

Yeah, they all want to be king and the rest of us be their serfs and peasants.

juris imprudent|11.7.09 @ 7:29PM|#

Huey Long was a libertarian? Who knew!

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 5:16PM|#

Just ask yourselves two simple questions folks. If this Pelosi health care plan is so good and wonderful for all of us and will expand our choice and opportunity:

1) Why is all of Congress exempting themselves from it, and

2) Why do we need to be forced into it literally at gunpoint?

|11.7.09 @ 5:20PM|#

I'm a bit sympathetic to the mandatory insurance thing. You can have massive freeriding, you can have mandatory insurance, or you can deny treatment. I'm okay with the second or third options, but that last one ain't gonna happen.

|11.7.09 @ 5:42PM|#

There's actually a four option - you give them treatment, and you expect them to pay for it afterwards. And send debt collectors if necessary.

What do you need *insurance* for, exactly? Why not expect people to pay for treatment directly?

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 6:07PM|#

There's actually a four option - you give them treatment, and you expect them to pay for it afterwards.

I know. What a radical concept, eh?

Why, if you do this, the next thing you know people might even stop abusing the system, by doing stuff like bringing their children to the emergency room every time they get a tummyache or something.

|11.7.09 @ 6:11PM|#

Then little Jimmy the bubble boy would die at age two instead of living till the ripe old age of five.

Seriously. if health insurance went away, catastrophic illness would destroy a family's finances, This is a good reason to make health insurance available (which it is) but insufficiewnt to make it mandatory for 18 year old healthy as a horse Alice who's just getting her financial feet under her.

Maybe some have never experienced or forgotten how much $900 - $2,000 really is when your starting out in life as an independent adult. Forgoing health insurance in those circumstances, rolling the dice as it were, is usually a good (and safe) bet.

Pelosi/Obama care will take that option away because they think they know better and are willing to use the power of the state to back up their opinion. Attempts at convimncing youth that opting out of health insurance is unwise is apparently a non-starter as young folks know better. Mandatory health insurance is a bad bet, especially if you're young, childless and healthy.

Making them buy it (tax, tax, goddamit it's a tax!) transfers wealth from the poorest in society to those who are wealthier under the guise of fairness.

smartass sob|11.7.09 @ 8:51PM|#

Yes, and you can bet that the health coverage they get for that $900 - $2000 will have such a high deductable they will still have to go into hock on something just to use it.

|11.7.09 @ 6:38PM|#

Or try to lower costs by removing regulation that holds back competition. Then people may or may not even need help beyond catastrophic coverage.

mris|11.7.09 @ 5:43PM|#

Suppose everyone was signed up would it still be concievable that it would still be a bankrupt concept? What if this is passed and it doesn't do what is projected?

|11.7.09 @ 5:55PM|#

If you are going to get rid of pre-existing conditions, you have to make people buy insurance. The only way to make them buy insurance is to punish them if they don't.

I don't think this provision will pass. It will be worse. They will get rid of the requirement to buy insurance and stop allowing companies to decline coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition. This will bankrupt the entire industry and give them an excuse to bail it out via a single payer UK socialized medical nightmare.

MNG|11.7.09 @ 8:05PM|#

John
More likely the insurance companies would just pass the costs on to those without pre-existing conditions. It's kind of the same logic as when courts make manufacturers pay for certain things that will protect a class that could not afford to pay for the harms that might befall them from some product, they know the manufacturer will pass the costs on, in a spread out form, to all paying customers...

|11.7.09 @ 9:17PM|#

The costs are going to be waaaaay to high to make that a viable option (unless there are severe penalties for going without insurance, of course). If premiums go up to $5000 a month, no one's going to pay that unless they have a condition that currently needs expensive treatment.

hmm|11.7.09 @ 5:55PM|#

"We are all dead in the long run." At least all of the people pushing for health care should by default of their own actions believe in that quote. So why the health care push?

|11.7.09 @ 6:09PM|#

It's going to be so wonderful, we'll have to march people into the system at gunpoint!

But seriously, if the Central State and mandate Americans purchase some good or service, what is to keep them from mandating - in the name of some public good - that we all have to buy a car from GM or Chrysler every two years?

hmm|11.7.09 @ 6:59PM|#

what is to keep them from mandating - in the name of some public good - that we all have to buy a car from GM or Chrysler every two years?

Easy. GMs and Chryslers won't last two years.

|11.7.09 @ 7:04PM|#

I think you're selling American Leyland short, hmmm.

Oh, wait...

prolefeed|11.7.09 @ 7:14PM|#

They have something like that in Japan. You have to register your car every few years -- and the inspections are so rigorous and costly to comply with that it's less expensive to buy a new Honda or Toyota.

|11.7.09 @ 7:17PM|#

And just look how well it's turned out for them.

hmm|11.7.09 @ 10:36PM|#

They also have a mass transit system that runs on time, down to the second, every day, of every year.

Slut Bunwalla|11.8.09 @ 3:30AM|#

A lot of molestation of young girls goes on on those trains, you know.

|11.9.09 @ 10:57PM|#

Ahhh... shaken. And if you modify your car with aftermarket lights, rims, accessories, to pass the shaken you must change your car back to the state that the manufacturer made it...

|11.7.09 @ 7:09PM|#

Age is a pre-existing condition. 18 year olds should pay just as much for insurance as 90 year olds. It's only fair.

Space Fiend|11.8.09 @ 6:49PM|#

You realize that is already included in the bill, right?

Morris|11.7.09 @ 8:23PM|#

Same thing for auto insurance, isn't it? How a driver's license?

|11.7.09 @ 8:51PM|#

You're a useless, scum-lapping shitbag. That's how.

|11.7.09 @ 9:05PM|#

No, it's nothing like that. I'm only required to carry third-party liability in case I damage someone, not comprehensive so I can get my own car repaired. That is because I would, in that instance, directly harm the third party, not indirectly through some government scheme to repair all dented automobiles because of some "right" to auto body repair.

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 9:36PM|#

A driver's license and auto insurance are the requirements for the privilege of being able to drive an automobile on the public roads.

It would be comparable if the law said you have to health insurance, or you're not eligible to be treated at a state hospital. They're saying you have to purchase health insurance even if you never go to a state hospital or use health care services in your entire life.

hmm|11.7.09 @ 11:31PM|#

The auto insurance licensing argument falls apart pretty fast when you start talking about punishing people for just inaction and not inaction tied to an action.

|11.7.09 @ 8:35PM|#

Next thing you know they'll take my thoughts away.

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 10:17PM|#

Fuck, the Stupak amendment just got approved, which means the final bill is almost certainly a lock to pass the House now.

|11.7.09 @ 10:22PM|#

I'm not going to pay it (except via increased monetary inflation). I'm not going to be coerced into buying a product.

Colin|11.7.09 @ 11:16PM|#

It just passed by 3 votes (1 Republican.)

Mike M.|11.7.09 @ 11:41PM|#

And those fucks in the Democratic caucus gave political cover to about as many vulnerable Dems as they possibly could, which proves beyond a doubt that they fully understand America doesn't want this shoved down our threat.

The Senate is our last hope now.

|11.7.09 @ 11:30PM|#

that 1 republican was Joseph Anh Cao of Louisiana.

RIP America

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.7.09 @ 11:58PM|#

And that makes what difference?

|11.7.09 @ 11:30PM|#

that 1 republican was Joseph Anh Cao of Louisiana.

RIP America

hmm|11.7.09 @ 11:47PM|#

I feel healthier already.

|11.7.09 @ 11:55PM|#

hell yeah. you orange little fuckers couldn't stop me! muahaha.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|11.7.09 @ 11:58PM|#

How does it come to be that in a representative democracy our elected leaders no longer represent us?

The American people don't want this and libertarians didn't even have to take over the world to achieve that.

But Nancy and Obama baby just fucked us.

I now totally, completely give up all hope of the US economy EVER recovering again.

|11.8.09 @ 12:35AM|#

I now totally, completely give up all hope of the US economy EVER recovering again.

Oh, it will recover, but it will do so after a total collapse, that results in a rejection of the nanny state. We're going to go through the same process that the Soviet Union did.

-jcr

hmm|11.8.09 @ 12:03AM|#

Who knows. Passing this may be as much a death knell as a victory. The political landscape is so fucked up at the moment who knows what will happen.

|11.8.09 @ 12:07AM|#

"Now, jail isn't a certainty; depending on the infraction, fines are also an option. And, looked at another way, all this really means is that the government continues to retain the authority to lock up those who don't pay their taxes."

You said it yourself. Legally speaking, it's taxes and yet you act surprised that people might be jailed for avoiding them. Thanks for all the clueless responses to the obvious!

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 7:26PM|#

Ray, the tax on us for "free" healthcare is a sham and a disgrace. It shouldn't be discussed, let alone passed into law.

|11.8.09 @ 12:34AM|#

This statute is unconstitutional on its face. I will not comply.

JB|11.8.09 @ 2:25AM|#

I want to see bitch-boy Obama and his dog Pelosi show up to enforce it.

Oh yes, there would be fun.

Paul|11.8.09 @ 3:50AM|#

Wish granted...

Paul|11.8.09 @ 3:49AM|#

The difference between a socialist system and a capitalist system is that in the socialist one, you can't opt out.

M o n k e e|11.8.09 @ 10:28AM|#

Before the election I was really hyped up about Obama, mainly because of the connection to Thaler via Goolsbee.
Obamanomics was supposed to be libertarian paternalism,

Its a concept that pisses of most libertarians both left and right but still, it would have been interesting to see a new idea tested.

I'm real curious to know how much influence Obama has actually had on the policy of this administration,
and how much he was ever committed to the concept of libertarian paternalism.

it kind of feels like as soon as Obama got the Democrats into power they shoved him aside and what we're seeing now is Pelosinomics.

Apparently the UK conservative party have jumped on libertarian paternalism so it might get its first try out pretty soon, when they win the next election

but its a shame that the democratic regime didn't try apply some of those ideas to the healthcare reform as opposed to the clunky, awkward, 50's style liberalism that warms the cockles of Pelosi and co so much.

hmm|11.8.09 @ 10:53AM|#

Or Obama did what all politicians do and told people what they wanted to hear. You seem to be unwilling to even consider that Obama's current path is the exact path he wanted.

Interesting making him the victim instead of the culprit. Kind of has a hint of messiah or hero worship.

Agent Provacateur|11.8.09 @ 11:22AM|#

Monkee blows Obama

Bad enough when these slaves believe the lies.The Obamatons made up their own lies about what "Dear Leader" believed and now wonder why he doesn't deliver on promises he never made.

Peter Tork|11.8.09 @ 12:23PM|#

Hey, I can't speak for Micky Dolenz, Michael Nesmith, or Davy Jones, but none of us Monkees blew anyone, let alone any president of the United States.

I'm not so sure about Don Kirshner, though.

M o n k e e|11.8.09 @ 12:50PM|#

Er If you've ever spotted any of my drunken rants about liberals/conservatives you'd probably know that I have no love for the democratic (or republican) party

the comment was about about Obama and libertarian paternalism and how no libertarian paternalism has actually been practiced

The link between Obama and Richard Thaler is fairly indisputable. Austan Goolsbee Obama's economics advisor is taking a sabbatical from Thaler's department and Obama was even mentioned in the preface to the UK edition of "Nudge; improving decisions about health wealth and hapiness" as a adherent of the principle

I don't buy into the theory in a big way, but its interesting and the underlying principle is giving people an "opt out" from government programs.

Obviously that principle is in direct contrast to the headline on this article. So it begs the question was Obama ever really committed to the idea or has he been sidelined from the administration's policy?

The Libertarian Guy|11.8.09 @ 2:05PM|#

There's nothing "libertarian" about Obamanomics, and "libertarian paternalism" is a load of shit. Sorry, dude.

|11.8.09 @ 10:34AM|#

If this was really about "universal coverage", wouldn't the gov't be better off buying/providing catastrophic coverage for everyone? The plan seems like a total CF...it's about control, and screwing over the patient even more...I can't begin to understand why they think this will work...they've totally fucked us, man.

*|11.8.09 @ 12:54PM|#

It's about squeezing a few more dollars out of the masses.

The Real Don Mynack|11.8.09 @ 12:18PM|#

By Don Mynack
June 18, 1997

For the last few years, the media have been obsessed with the Don Mynack Generation, writing about us and analyzing us to death and trying to pigeonhole us with their dumb labels. Well, Time magazine and all the rest of you, I have one thing to say: We are not what you think we are. We are not time-wasting slackers. We are not flannel-clad coffee addicts. Nor are we cutthroat Harvard MBAs with a taste only for the almighty dollar.

It would be impossible for me to convey to you in the simple, media-friendly sound bites that you crave the qualities that define members of the Don Mynack Generation. That's because we are so many things.

The Don Mynack Generation is hardworking. We don't like our part-time jobs as stocker at the Target GreatLand and busboy at Lane's Supper Club, but most of us need to save money so we can move out of our parents' house and get our own apartment. We hope to get promoted soon and become regular waiters, but worry that it might not happen. ...

Jennifer|11.8.09 @ 2:03PM|#

Many years ago I dated (then broke up with) a man who tried hard to be a sociopathic control freak; one of his favorite stunts was to buy me, unbidden, some very expensive present, and then whine about how he had trouble paying his bills because he spent so much money on me. Which quickly annoyed me, so the next time he bought me a present I snapped "I don't want it and I hope you saved the goddamned receipt, because damned if I'll be blamed for your inability to manage your finances."

Of course, in that case I had the legal right to say "Keep your present and go fuck yourself since I will no longer be doing it for you." But I won't be able to do that with the healthcare bill: no, the larger society will "pay my costs: whether I ask them to or not, and then since they're taking on these enormous bills on my behalf, they'll thus feel they have the right to dictate what I do or don't to keep those bills in line. Did I eat enough salads last week? Oooh, but the salads had too much cheese on them -- cholesterol! More roughage in the salad; less dressing and cheese. Am I wearing enough sunblock before I go outside? Shame on me if I'm not; melanoma will cost the collective a LOT of money. Is my jacket buttoned all the way up to my chin? If I catch pneumonia it will be expensive, so show the nice police officer you're properly dressed before you go for a walk in the snow.

Fuck fuck fuckity fuck FUCK.

takes12no1|11.9.09 @ 11:22AM|#

Many years ago I dated (then broke up with) a man who tried hard to be a sociopathic control freak

Control freak? That's almost funny coming from someone who used to be an ass-shaking, titty bar hustler who made a "scandalously fun" living controlling men. What's the matter - did he expect you to actually drink those hundred dollar bottles of "champaign" instead of spitting them into the ice bucket?

|11.8.09 @ 5:19PM|#

"all this really means is that the government continues to retain the authority to lock up those who don't pay their taxes"

that's it exactly, no more, no less.

|11.8.09 @ 6:26PM|#

Not exactly. This time were collecting the breathing tax via corporations.
Paris,
1793-94,
tax collectors,
reign of terror,
guillotines ...

Do I sound pissed?

Obama|11.8.09 @ 6:30PM|#

But it isn't a tax, George. Really!

|11.11.09 @ 12:56PM|#

No, when I talk about "health care as a right" I talk about a public option that idiot Republicans have since excised from the running. If there were actual health care as a right I'd still be supporting the bill. With no public option and this jail nonsense I no longer support the bill. Health care *should be* a right for all Americans, but unfortunately morons who are more concerned about their bottom line and money have ruined that for us all, and now potentially created jail time for us too.

|11.11.09 @ 6:49PM|#

There are 10 Million undocumented workers in the U.S. Half of them do pay into the federal system and do not get insurance which to me seems unfair. However, and this is a big however, the other half which is around 4 to 5 million who receive cash are going to get away with breaking federal laws. I am on the fence about this health care plan because frankly you would have to read it for yourself to truly understand it. But what i do understand is if the goal is to stop the freeloaders then how about starting with those 4 or 5 million people who drain our health care everyday before going after suffering Americans.

|11.14.09 @ 11:24PM|#

Hmm poor Illegals, the percentage of illegals in the US is about 7% and unemployment is 9% deport there overly ambitious asses and STOP GIVING THEM WELFARE BENEFITS. YES THEY DO RECIEVE BENEFITS.Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:24PM|#

Hmm poor Illegals, the percentage of illegals in the US is about 7% and unemployment is 9% deport there overly ambitious asses and STOP GIVING THEM WELFARE BENEFITS. YES THEY DO RECIEVE BENEFITS.Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:02PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:09PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:10PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:10PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:11PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:11PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:20PM|#

Why should you have the right to choose for your self or to retain what you work for. That right is only reserved for Billionairs and greasey politicians who smile at campeign time and stick you in the back as soon as the election is over.Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:28PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:29PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:29PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:29PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:30PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:30PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:30PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.14.09 @ 11:30PM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.

|11.24.09 @ 5:58PM|#

I am being watched|11.14.09 @ 11:28PM
You know, your are totally right. Perhaps the citizens of America could file a class action lawsuit? I think if the government's proposition to potentially imprison millions of innocent civilians had occurred during the WW2, or Vietnam generation, the would have tore that establishment apart! Unfortunately government indoctrination, "sissification" &, castration of the public's will to resist is all but complete. Millions will probably be imprisoned or as I call it, "kidnapped" & "political prisoners" & nothing will be done about it. The "free" citizens, the ones who's will is broken, will be more then happy to oblige their governmental masters, just to stay out of prison. Maybe now we know what all these rumored FEMA concentration camps are actually meant for. I think it's a plot. Since the government knows they can't afford to insure everybody, as a cost cutting measure it might be cheaper to just lump all the poorest people into prison camps instead of insuring them. Also I wonder; The children of these political prisoners, potentially millions of them, what will become of them? Families will be mercilessly ripped apart. Will the children just join the parents in the "concentration camps", or will they be "re-educated" in separate run state indoctrination fatalities? Or just off to state orphanages & or foster homes? Finally where is all the money gong to come from for all this? Potentially 10's of millions of men, women & children could become unwilling, wards of the state.

Trackback| 11.29.09 @ 1:50AM

credit repair, on credit repair, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

I just stopped by to check out your site.

jeremy|12.29.09 @ 10:59PM|#

On the other hand however millions more Americans would have access to health care.
On the other, other hand all government health plans are doomed to failure.

|5.3.10 @ 12:49PM|#

I think now much differences between the remember things. Fat Burning Furnace Scam Review

|5.6.10 @ 4:20AM|#

You have very good info on the site. Thanks so much!Diet and Nutrition Review

|5.9.10 @ 9:53AM|#

Hey, love your website I've been reading about this subject all night. Best Fat Burner Reviews

|6.7.10 @ 2:15AM|#

Here's an idea, then. Why don't you stop coming to this site? I don't go to progressive/liberal sites because I've heard all their arguments and I know it would just get my blood boiling. Free Website builder

|6.9.10 @ 5:40AM|#

Again, you fail to see that every little thing you manage to get your grubby little hands on is, by divine right, solely yours in the first place. YourNetBiz Scam

|6.10.10 @ 4:52AM|#

And those fucks in the Democratic caucus gave political cover to about as many vulnerable Dems as they possibly could, which proves beyond a doubt that they fully understand America doesn't want this shoved down our threat. Primo Vacations

|6.15.10 @ 2:46AM|#

Extortion, is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It sounds like the politicians lobying for this to pass should all be tryed under the RICO ACT.
export import trade

|6.19.10 @ 3:35AM|#

Great information! I’ve been looking for something like this for a while now. Thanks!timeshare news

|6.29.10 @ 11:13AM|#

Very good information, thank you very much by the article and the quality of your Web site. Airport Taxi Transfers To From Airport

|7.9.10 @ 11:32PM|#

Though I would've loved it much more if you added a relevant video or at least pictures to back up the explanation, I still thought that your write-up quite helpful.
It's usually hard to make a complicated matter seem very easy.
I enjoy your weblog and will sign up to your feed so I will not miss anything. Fantastic content.
London Female Escorts