GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 4 of 5 < 123 4 5 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Court Upholds Obama Care! (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1072905)

baddog 07-01-2012 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 19033820)
I only care about the part of the bill that says "you must either buy insurance or pay a fine"

the rest of it means absolutely nothing to me, I don't really give a fuck about it.
:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

And people that think this is the first step to universal health care are truly delusional.

Failed 07-01-2012 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 19033820)
I only care about the part of the bill that says "you must either buy insurance or pay a fine"

the rest of it means absolutely nothing to me, I don't really give a fuck about it.
I care about that part too. It means free loaders like you who don't pay their medical bills will now have to contribute and people like me who pay for insurance won't be the only ones who have to pay for you :)

Relentless 07-01-2012 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 19033820)
I only care about the part of the bill that says "you must either buy insurance or pay a fine" the rest of it means absolutely nothing to me, I don't really give a fuck about it.
Then you must hate the part where your tax dollars are used for police, firemen, military spending, roads, schools... you have to pay for all of that or pay a fine as well. We live in a society, not a collection of independent fiefdoms. Societies have shared benefits... and they also have shared costs.

The part people don't seem to get is that lack of healthcare for *someone else* is a serious threat to you and your way of life. If someone else gets sick and sneezes, they pose a risk to getting you sick. If many people are ill and miss work it has an inflationary effect on consumer market pricing. If someone ever got *really sick* and decided not to get treatment for lack of insurance you open up the risk of pandemics and plagues. Add the national security risk of biological warfare and yes, having somebody you have never met able to get a 'well visit' at a doctors office for free once a year is a vital matter of national interest.

We do not allow the Police to include 'profit' in their business model. We don't allow the fire department to charge you extra for fires just because you can afford to pay more than a poor person. We require utility companies and the post office to prove that any increase in rates are a necessity. Yet, if someone has an undiagnosed potentially infectious disease... we tell them they are on their own to deal with a for-profit corporate juggernaut - unless they are so poor as to not have anything left for a parasitic insurance system to take from them.

Healthcare is not a luxury, any more than police or the fire department or electricity could be considered one. The law should include significant copays for things, it should not cover anything 'cosmetic or nonessential' - but if someone I have never met develops a nasty cough, it is in my interest and yours to identify them, know why they are coughing and treat it before you or I get sick. :2 cents:

directfiesta 07-01-2012 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 19033729)
No

You pay the fine for not having bought the overpriced insurance.

YOU STILL HAVE NO COVERAGE IF YOU PAY THE FINE,

All this law does is penalize you for not buying insurance

Unless you're a crackhead or a welfare momma in which case you get your insurance either really cheap or free, paid for by you and me.

And by the way that fine is only a couple hundred in 2014, it goes up to over $2000 in 2016.

Welcome to the New America
Nothing really new ....

If you drive a car with an expired drivers license , you get a fine ( if you prefer , call it a tax ) .
You must stop driving, and have to pay the full license fee .

This obligation will reduce all the' free ' care provided to people that claim they have no $$$ ...
Don't like the obligation ??? I agree, I do not like it either :
- school tax ( never had a child )
- Military ( am anti-war )
- etc ....

galleryseek 07-01-2012 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19033881)
Then you must hate the part where your tax dollars are used for police, firemen, roads, schools...
I do. I would rather a free market (something we don't and haven't had for a long time) to take care of the things above. A free market fueled by competition, and not state-sponsored monopolies not threatened with the threat of business failure; which ultimately provides for lesser quality, inefficient services. The notion that the services above couldn't be handled by the free market is impractical/impossible is only because people have never known otherwise. It's ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19033881)
Societies have shared benefits... and they also have shared costs.
They do. But as long as those "shared costs" are enforced through the initiation of force against peaceful individuals, they're illegitimate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19033881)
The part people don't seem to get is that lack of healthcare for *someone else* is a serious threat to you and your way of life. If someone else gets sick and sneezes, they pose a risk to getting you sick. If many people are ill and miss work it has an inflationary effect on consumer market pricing. If someone ever got *really sick* and decided not to get treatment for lack of insurance you open up the risk of pandemics and plagues. Add the national security risk of biological warfare and yes, having somebody you have never met able to get a 'well visit' at a doctors office for free once a year is a vital matter of national interest.

We do not allow the Police to include 'profit' in their business model. We don't allow the fire department to charge you extra for fires just because you can afford to pay more than a poor person. We require utility companies and the post office to prove that any increase in rates are a necessity. Yet, if someone has an undiagnosed potentially infectious disease... we tell them they are on their own to deal with a for-profit corporate juggernaut - unless they are so poor as to not have anything left for a parasitic insurance system to take from them.

Healthcare is not a luxury, any more than police or the fire department or electricity could be considered one. The law should include significant copays for things, it should not cover anything 'cosmetic or nonessential' - but if someone I have never met develops a nasty cough, it is in my interest and yours to identify them, know why they are coughing and treat it before you or I get sick. :2 cents:
Everything you say above is correct, except you believe the initiation of force is a legitimate means of solving the issues instead of promoting your ideas and encouraging voluntary relationships.

I eat relatively well, I exercise, I wash my hands after touching public property, all because it's something I voluntarily choose to do because at some point I was enlightened to those ideas.

Usually the statist response to the above would be, "Well! Not every person in society listens! Not every person acts responsibly!", but is that truly justification for using force against peaceful individuals? (in the case of the ACA the force = theft via fines and the peaceful individuals = anyone who simply chooses not to buy healthcare, which is a peaceful action).

It's should not be a question of "private vs. public healthcare?" The question needs to be "voluntary vs. coercive?" for anything the state does. It's like saying, "Well the system isn't perfect right now, it needs fixed, so instead of trying to fix it through the non-initiation of force, let's just say fuck it and use force to attempt to fix the problem"

Now a statist is perfectly fine with the train of thought in the quote above, because that's what the state essentially does. If you're fine with that sort of thing, OK. Just understand that you have a serious problem of logic; ask yourself then why can only some people use violence? Why can only some people called the state use violence to provide these services and other people can't? That's like saying "Human beings should not initiate the use of force" .... "except those guys over there in the black suits. Not only they can, but they should." It's morally wrong, corrupt and philosophically incorrect.

Paul Markham 07-01-2012 11:52 AM
don't mess with a systemt that works this well.

Envy of so many places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mortality_rate

baddog 07-01-2012 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 19033884)
Nothing really new ....

If you drive a car with an expired drivers license , you get a fine ( if you prefer , call it a tax ) .
You must stop driving, and have to pay the full license fee .
No one MUST drive a car. Why MUST I get health insurance?

Failed 07-01-2012 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19033979)
No one MUST drive a car. Why MUST I get health insurance?
Why MUST I pay car insurance if I own a car?

Barry-xlovecam 07-01-2012 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19033979)
No one MUST drive a car. Why MUST I get health insurance?
Let me turn the table around -- if you get hit by a truck why should a hospital fix you up if you don't have insurance or money up front?

In business we don't give credit terms to everyone but federal law requires hospitals to render emergency treatment to stabilize all people that are seriously ill or injured that arrive in the emergency room.

galleryseek 07-01-2012 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 19033971)
don't mess with a systemt that works this well.

Envy of so many places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mortality_rate
I'm willing to bet a large factor of infant mortality rates in the US comes from newborn mortalities due to over-medicalization. Just look at the cesarean section rate of near 40%. Over 1 in every 3 babies are born by their mother being cut open. My wife was a NICU-RN and is opting to have our baby at home because of how she knows the hospitals operate. It's safer to have your child at home. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. For example our midwife has delivered over 1,000 babies at a home location, no deaths, 4 c-sections. You compare that to the national average of babies born in US hospitals and that c-section rate would be near 400. And of course those c-sections cause complications in both mother and baby from which you get that high mortality rate.

..That's not to mention all of the unnecessary drug interventions they give during labor, the insane number of vaccinations a child under the age of 1 receives, which also contribute to that pathetic mortality rate we here in the US have.

Paul Markham 07-01-2012 12:56 PM
And yet another reason not to tamper with the system. And reasons for so many to envy America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country

Quote:
Impact on U.S. economic productivity

On March 1, 2010, billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees? health care put them at a competitive disadvantage. He compared the roughly 17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with the 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world, noted that the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person, and said, ?[t]hat kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.?[49]
But the US has such a tiny economy so you would expect them to spend more to keep this marvelous system running properly. and so what if customers have to pay a bit extra to cove waste. Public sending is far more wasteful.

Quote:
Allegations of waste

In December 2011, the outgoing Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, asserted that 20% to 30% of health care spending is waste. He listed five causes for the waste: (1) overtreatment of patients, (2) the failure to coordinate care, (3) the administrative complexity of the health care system, (4) burdensome rules and (5) fraud.[50]
At least the US doesn't have one of those expensive public health care systems where every one is covered, no questions asked.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_per_capita

And it's such a great industry producing massive profits for share holders.

Quote:
Health Expenditures and Services in the U.S.:

Health care costs continue to rise rapidly in the U.S. and throughout the developed world. Health care costs continue to rise rapidly in the U.S. and throughout the developed world. Total U.S. health care expenditures were estimated to be $2.7 trillion in 2011, and are projected to soar to $3.6 trillion in 2016.
A lot of the money is spent on brainwashing people it works so well. :thumbsup

Paul Markham 07-01-2012 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19033979)
No one MUST drive a car. Why MUST I get health insurance?
I agree with you, you don't have to. And when you get ill or have an accident, which you will do, you can go to Medicare and see if you qualify, write an open check, lose everything you have or die and leave your wife and family with your loss and the problems of paying the bills to live.

I didn't have so many choices. I had to pay and when Eva had an accident the hospital had to save her life, free of charge on the day. When I had cancer, I had to let the hospital cure me so I could stay here and annoy people. Again free of charge on the day. We don't have the options you have. :1orglaugh

TheSenator 07-01-2012 01:50 PM
Although, Obongocare is not the quickest way to single payer health insurance, it is much better then the alternative.


Obongocare will die by a death of a thousand cuts and the privatized health care insurance companies will go out of business.

Medicare for all should be implemented to cover all Americans.

baddog 07-01-2012 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Failed (Post 19033986)
Why MUST I pay car insurance if I own a car?
To protect THE OTHER GUY. The only car insurance that is mandatory is to cover damage done to the guy you hit, not you. HUGE difference

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 19033989)
Let me turn the table around -- if you get hit by a truck why should a hospital fix you up if you don't have insurance or money up front?
Because the hospital is receiving government funding to operate the ER. They won't let me stay after they got me patched up.

directfiesta 07-01-2012 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19033979)
No one MUST drive a car. Why MUST I get health insurance?
Because, even if you have NO health insurance , you still get treatment ... and the ' others ' pay for it ... That does not happen for driving ...

If you want to push, why must I pay school taxes .. or taxes for military , or taxes for prisons where a huge number are there for non-violent ' substance ' infraction ...

Fine, abolish all government and welcome anarchy ... WWW ... ( Wild Wild West ... )

Tijuana_Tom 07-01-2012 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19034087)
To protect THE OTHER GUY. The only car insurance that is mandatory is to cover damage done to the guy you hit, not you. HUGE difference
You talk like you've never owned a vehicle. The insurance protects you just as much as the other drivers. It's mainly protecting you from being sued or incurring massive debts.

The insurance company also makes a lot of assumptions about you getting into accidents based on other drivers when you could have never been in an accident.

I've never had an at fault accident and im still paying $4k a year for insurance JUST IN CASE.

It's the same shit you old moron.

baddog 07-01-2012 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tijuana_Tom (Post 19034120)
You talk like you've never owned a vehicle. The insurance protects you just as much as the other drivers. It's mainly protecting you from being sued or incurring massive debts.

The insurance company also makes a lot of assumptions about you getting into accidents based on other drivers when you could have never been in an accident.

I've never had an at fault accident and im still paying $4k a year for insurance JUST IN CASE.

It's the same shit you old moron.
You do not live in the US, so you have NO CLUE. The ONLY STATE ORDERED auto insurance would be PL/PD (personal liability and property damage) That covers injuries and/or property damage to the other guy. It DOES NOTHING to cover your injuries/damages. If you are buying a car on credit or leasing it you have to get COLLISION to protect the loan/lease company. That is their rule, not the state's. If you want medical coverage for you, you get MedPay coverage. Not mandated by the state or any loan company I have ever dealt with.

You can also get UI coverage which is Uninsured or Underinsured Motororist coverage. Again, NOT MANDATORY.

And insurance will not keep you from getting sued, moron.

Tijuana_Tom 07-01-2012 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19034145)
You do not live in the US, so you have NO CLUE. The ONLY STATE ORDERED auto insurance would be PL/PD (personal liability and property damage) That covers injuries and/or property damage to the other guy. It DOES NOTHING to cover your injuries/damages. If you are buying a car on credit or leasing it you have to get COLLISION to protect the loan/lease company. That is their rule, not the state's. If you want medical coverage for you, you get MedPay coverage. Not mandated by the state or any loan company I have ever dealt with.

You can also get UI coverage which is Uninsured or Underinsured Motororist coverage. Again, NOT MANDATORY.

And insurance will not keep you from getting sued, moron.
*facepalm* Jesus christ youre fucking retarded.

Tijuana_Tom 07-01-2012 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19034145)
You do not live in the US, so you have NO CLUE.
I'm american you fail psychic.

Quote:
The ONLY STATE ORDERED auto insurance would be PL/PD (personal liability and property damage) That covers injuries and/or property damage to the other guy. It DOES NOTHING to cover your injuries/damages. If you are buying a car on credit or leasing it you have to get COLLISION to protect the loan/lease company. That is their rule, not the state's. If you want medical coverage for you, you get MedPay coverage. Not mandated by the state or any loan company I have ever dealt with.
If you don't have insurance and you get into an accident causing $500k in damage what happens?

You think you just walk away? :1orglaugh

It protects everyone.

Tijuana_Tom 07-01-2012 02:57 PM
Right now the people who do not have insurance are costing you tax dollars that the government doesn't have.

How is this soo hard to understand? Eventually Americans have to start paying more taxes.

You know these same people crying about Obamacare will be the first to cry about their neighbor who was refused treatment. lol.

Relentless 07-01-2012 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 19033962)
I do. I would rather a free market (something we don't and haven't had for a long time) to take care of the things above. A free market fueled by competition, and not state-sponsored monopolies not threatened with the threat of business failure; which ultimately provides for lesser quality, inefficient services. The notion that the services above couldn't be handled by the free market is impractical/impossible is only because people have never known otherwise. It's ignorance.
If you do not want to contribute to, or benefit from, any societal institutions the remedy is very simple. Move to your own island in the middle of nowhere. Good luck with that. You have internet access because you pay a private company for it. A private company that only exists because of the banking, transit, security and workforce infrastructure provided by our society. Remove that infrastructure and it all goes away very quickly. You can not build a meaningful industrial complex without having a solid foundational infrastructure put in place and maintained by a government.

Quote:
They do. But as long as those "shared costs" are enforced through the initiation of force against peaceful individuals, they're illegitimate.
They are not enforced by force. You are free to leave any time. Unless you happen to be Native American, the claim you have to 'being here' is predated by the benefits you and your ancestors gained from the government that was already in place. You can give those benefits up and go back to living as your lineage did before coming here any time you want. If the government started using the military to keep you here, I'd agree with you. These laws and rules only apply to you so long as you choose to remain under the obligations and presume the benefits of being a part of this society.


Quote:
I eat relatively well, I exercise, I wash my hands after touching public property, all because it's something I voluntarily choose to do because at some point I was enlightened to those ideas.
Sadly you are not the norm and societies do not pass laws or govern based on what the best case citizen will do, or on what the worst case citizen will do. Proper legislation is based on what will benefit the society most and hinder the individual least. Not 'anything that would be nice to have' and not 'only things that cost individuals nothing.'

Quote:
Usually the statist response to the above would be, "Well! Not every person in society listens! Not every person acts responsibly!", but is that truly justification for using force against peaceful individuals? (in the case of the ACA the force = theft via fines and the peaceful individuals = anyone who simply chooses not to buy healthcare, which is a peaceful action). It's should not be a question of "private vs. public healthcare?" The question needs to be "voluntary vs. coercive?" for anything the state does. It's like saying, "Well the system isn't perfect right now, it needs fixed, so instead of trying to fix it through the non-initiation of force, let's just say fuck it and use force to attempt to fix the problem"
Try running a country and providing foundational infrastructure for 300+ Million citizens using a revenue system based on "donations' and let me know how that works out for you and your countrymen.... Laws are passed and you have peaceful, useful, democratic means of changing those laws. You can run for office, work to get someone you choose elected, donate money to campaigns or attempt to sway public opinion. If you view prevails, that's great so long as you use peaceful legal means. If your view doesn't prevail you always have the option of leaving. Once you decide to stay, you are also deciding to voluntarily be bound by the laws passed by the country you live in. That isn't coercion, that's a democratic society in which you happen to disagree with some or all of its laws.

Quote:
Now a statist is perfectly fine with the train of thought in the quote above, because that's what the state essentially does. If you're fine with that sort of thing, OK. Just understand that you have a serious problem of logic; ask yourself then why can only some people use violence? Why can only some people called the state use violence to provide these services and other people can't? That's like saying "Human beings should not initiate the use of force" .... "except those guys over there in the black suits. Not only they can, but they should." It's morally wrong, corrupt and philosophically incorrect.
The answer is simple. Because YOU voluntarily choose to live in a state that tells you these are the laws and requires you to abide by them or leave. It really is that simple. You can make the effort to change laws, you can choose to leave, or you can abide by the laws as they are... no more and no less. :2 cents:

Barry-xlovecam 07-01-2012 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19034087)



Because the hospital is receiving government funding to operate the ER. They won't let me stay after they got me patched up.


They will admit you if your legs are broken and your skull is fractured in an accident. We are not talking a few sutures and a bandage.

So, then the government should pay for your healthcare -- isn't that the dreaded socialism?

Were does the government get the money? More taxes or debt!

So, being uninsured you expect taxpayer money to pay your costs if you cannot?

Think about it ...

IllTestYourGirls 07-01-2012 03:58 PM
People comparing ObamaTax to buying car insurance = biggest retards of all. :1orglaugh

galleryseek 07-01-2012 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19034173)
If you do not want to contribute to, or benefit from, any societal institutions the remedy is very simple. Move to your own island in the middle of nowhere. Good luck with that. You have internet access because you pay a private company for it. A private company that only exists because of the banking, transit, security and workforce infrastructure provided by our society. Remove that infrastructure and it all goes away very quickly. You can not build a meaningful industrial complex without having a solid foundational infrastructure put in place and maintained by a government.



They are not enforced by force. You are free to leave any time. Unless you happen to be Native American, the claim you have to 'being here' is predated by the benefits you and your ancestors gained from the government that was already in place. You can give those benefits up and go back to living as your lineage did before coming here any time you want. If the government started using the military to keep you here, I'd agree with you. These laws and rules only apply to you so long as you choose to remain under the obligations and presume the benefits of being a part of this society.




Sadly you are not the norm and societies do not pass laws or govern based on what the best case citizen will do, or on what the worst case citizen will do. Proper legislation is based on what will benefit the society most and hinder the individual least. Not 'anything that would be nice to have' and not 'only things that cost individuals nothing.'



Try running a country and providing foundational infrastructure for 300+ Million citizens using a revenue system based on "donations' and let me know how that works out for you and your countrymen.... Laws are passed and you have peaceful, useful, democratic means of changing those laws. You can run for office, work to get someone you choose elected, donate money to campaigns or attempt to sway public opinion. If you view prevails, that's great so long as you use peaceful legal means. If your view doesn't prevail you always have the option of leaving. Once you decide to stay, you are also deciding to voluntarily be bound by the laws passed by the country you live in. That isn't coercion, that's a democratic society in which you happen to disagree with some or all of its laws.



The answer is simple. Because YOU voluntarily choose to live in a state that tells you these are the laws and requires you to abide by them or leave. It really is that simple. You can make the effort to change laws, you can choose to leave, or you can abide by the laws as they are... no more and no less. :2 cents:
This pretty much directly addresses the main points in your response above. I'm pressed for time so just pasting this video instead.

MK Ultra 07-01-2012 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Failed (Post 19033877)
I care about that part too. It means free loaders like you who don't pay their medical bills will now have to contribute and people like me who pay for insurance won't be the only ones who have to pay for you :)
That's another thing I hate about this whole argument, just because I don't have insurance I'm somehow a freeloader or a "free rider" as those assholes who support it call it. :321GFY

I have paid for all my medical care throughout my entire life, I don't owe anybody a dime.

I'm in my mid fifties with diabetes, high blood pressure a few other conditions that make getting health insurance prohibitively expensive, I go to the doctor 6 times per year and pay cash, I pay for all my medications.

So now my choices are I can either pay for the overpriced insurance with the money I'm putting away for my retirement, or can go without insurance, pay the fine and take the chance that I'll be able to retire someday.

I have a feeling I'll be paying the fine and using the emergency room as my primary care provider, I may as well become what I'm already accused of being.

Maybe there are good parts to the law, if I get really sick they can't refuse to sell me the insurance, I can always drop it after.

But I will always oppose the mandate.

Robbie 07-01-2012 04:25 PM
I don't see where there is any "health care" at all in this law.

All I see is a mandatory health insurance law. Nothing in it that addresses the deal Obama made with the drug companies to insure that they can continue to charge U.S. citizens 3 and 4 times higher than any other country on Earth.

And nothing in there about hospitals over charging for everything ($28 for kleenex for instance).

The way I see it...IF we had just said "fuck it" and went all the way with "single payer" and made it basically medicaid for everyone...the insurance companies would have went out of business completely because they would be obsolete.

So who really benefits from this? Obviously the insurance companies and their billions of dollars of lobbying got the result they wanted and now they are going to be collecting money from every living person in the U.S. :(

MaDalton 07-01-2012 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK Ultra (Post 19034247)
That's another thing I hate about this whole argument, just because I don't have insurance I'm somehow a freeloader or a "free rider" as those assholes who support it call it. :321GFY

I have paid for all my medical care throughout my entire life, I don't owe anybody a dime.

I'm in my mid fifties with diabetes, high blood pressure a few other conditions that make getting health insurance prohibitively expensive, I go to the doctor 6 times per year and pay cash, I pay for all my medications.

So now my choices are I can either pay for the overpriced insurance with the money I'm putting away for my retirement, or can go without insurance, pay the fine and take the chance that I'll be able to retire someday.

I have a feeling I'll be paying the fine and using the emergency room as my primary care provider, I may as well become what I'm already accused of being.

Maybe there are good parts to the law, if I get really sick they can't refuse to sell me the insurance, I can always drop it after.

But I will always oppose the mandate.

just cause i am interested: have you checked how much insurance would be for you under the new law?

Barry-xlovecam 07-01-2012 05:01 PM
i just had Cryoplasty surgery on the femoral artery (leg- thigh) (similar to angioplasty) the "sticker price" was $72,000.83. (Yeah they wanted their fuckin' .83 too!) The contracted insurer's price was $33,508.37 (cofinity contract.) My insurer paid all but about $ $2,124.82 then some professional fees (surgeon) -- that is my copay and part of this year's deductible. So, what is your leg worth? I have PAD (Peripheral artery disease) a "preexisting" condition. My insurance and medical expenses are about $1,000 a month out of my pocket.

The Cardiologist/surgeon said I would live to be 96 kiddingly -- I am 57 this year. Still years to get the Medicare I have paid into for 40 years now!

I do sympathize for your dilemma MK Ultra -- you got a tough row to hoe. If you get real bad it gets REAL expensive.

I have needed about $175K in medical services and prescriptions in the past three years (Multiple surgeries, CAT Scans, costly testing -- I have advanced arteriosclerosis).

I wish I was forced to have healthcare insurance when I was in my 20s and 30s as things might be very different today. Like most of the things I know -- I have had to learn this the hard way.

What is you life worth to you?
When you are near dead its worth a lot ... Just ask any one who knows ...

Relentless 07-01-2012 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 19034241)
I posted a video
The guy in your video is either an idiot or he just thinks you are dumb enough to hum along when he speaks. Asking himself his own slanted questions and giving rhetorical answers does nothing to actually answer the questions at hand. Just to show you why... let me engage in some of the same ridiculousness.
-----

Me: Did you or your ancestors come TO this country after it was founded?
Him: Uh, yeah of course.

Me: So the country already had laws and a system of government in place that clearly stated how the laws may be amended over time?

Him: Yes. That is absolutely true

Me: Did you or your ancestors benefit from living in this country under those laws by getting employed, educated, living without fear of invasion, owning personal property that is protected from thieves, having access to technology and other essential aspects of living in a civilized society?

Him: I think I see where you are going with this and I already feel like a fool...

Me: Don't feel like a fool, clearly you made a video without thinking things through ahead of time. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is other people on the internet will see it and assume just because you have a microphone that you have some idea wtf you are talking about... even though we both know that isn't true.

Him: Yeah I feel like a real tool right about know.

Me: So you admit you are wrong and that if you come TO a state that already exists, explains its laws and you benefit from your free choice to accept a relationship as a citizen of that state with binding laws governing you... you ought to be bound by those same laws until you peacefully get them changed, relinquish your citizenship or change your mind and agree with them.

Him: Yes. You are absolutely correct, I am going to go make a new video about that right now.

Me: No. Don't make a video. Just sit quietly and think. Do us all a favor.
------
Hope that helps :2 cents:

Minte 07-01-2012 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19034292)
The guy in your video is either an idiot or he just thinks you are dumb enough to hum along when he speaks. Asking himself his own slanted questions and giving rhetorical answers does nothing to actually answer the questions at hand. Just to show you why... let me engage in some of the same ridiculousness.
-----

Me: Did you or your ancestors come TO this country after it was founded?
Him: Uh, yeah of course.

Me: So the country already had laws and a system of government in place that clearly stated how the laws may be amended over time?

Him: Yes. That is absolutely true

Me: Did you or your ancestors benefit from living in this country under those laws by getting employed, educated, living without fear of invasion, owning personal property that is protected from thieves, having access to technology and other essential aspects of living in a civilized society?

Him: I think I see where you are going with this and I already feel like a fool...

Me: Don't feel like a fool, clearly you made a video without thinking things through ahead of time. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is other people on the internet will see it and assume just because you have a microphone that you have some idea wtf you are talking about... even though we both know that isn't true.

Him: Yeah I feel like a real tool right about know.

Me: So you admit you are wrong and that if you come TO a state that already exists, explains its laws and you benefit from your free choice to accept a relationship as a citizen of that state with binding laws governing you... you ought to be bound by those same laws until you peacefully get them changed, relinquish your citizenship or change your mind and agree with them.

Him: Yes. You are absolutely correct, I am going to go make a new video about that right now.

Me: No. Don't make a video. Just sit quietly and think. Do us all a favor.
------
Hope that helps :2 cents:
I've always pictured you as a rather dry stuffy fellow. Good to see you really do have a sense of humor. :thumbsup

galleryseek 07-01-2012 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19034292)
The guy in your video is either an idiot or he just thinks you are dumb enough to hum along when he speaks. Asking himself his own slanted questions and giving rhetorical answers does nothing to actually answer the questions at hand. Just to show you why... let me engage in some of the same ridiculousness.
-----

Me: Did you or your ancestors come TO this country after it was founded?
Him: Uh, yeah of course.

Me: So the country already had laws and a system of government in place that clearly stated how the laws may be amended over time?

Him: Yes. That is absolutely true

Me: Did you or your ancestors benefit from living in this country under those laws by getting employed, educated, living without fear of invasion, owning personal property that is protected from thieves, having access to technology and other essential aspects of living in a civilized society?

Him: I think I see where you are going with this and I already feel like a fool...

Me: Don't feel like a fool, clearly you made a video without thinking things through ahead of time. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is other people on the internet will see it and assume just because you have a microphone that you have some idea wtf you are talking about... even though we both know that isn't true.

Him: Yeah I feel like a real tool right about know.

Me: So you admit you are wrong and that if you come TO a state that already exists, explains its laws and you benefit from your free choice to accept a relationship as a citizen of that state with binding laws governing you... you ought to be bound by those same laws until you peacefully get them changed, relinquish your citizenship or change your mind and agree with them.

Him: Yes. You are absolutely correct, I am going to go make a new video about that right now.

Me: No. Don't make a video. Just sit quietly and think. Do us all a favor.
------
Hope that helps :2 cents:
The purpose of the video went right over your head, haha. The whole purpose of me discussing these ideas with you and others, Stefan Molyneux posting those videos (by the way he has 900 videos so yeah he's "thought" things through) is to "peacefully get them changed".

I benefit from living here in some ways but other ways I don't. In the ways I don't, I would like to change.

It's not as if anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists, some libertarians, dare I say anarchists, are simply bickering to bicker. The whole goal is to offer enlightenment, much in the same way Ron Paul has to others with his campaign.

The only way a truly voluntary society will come about is through the exchanging of ideas and hopefully kickstarting a society where children are raised to value the non-aggression principle and hopefully usher in a stateless voluntary society in the future.

Right now? It could never happen, I agree. We still have generations of people who believe the state and aggression are how you solve problems; but that doesn't negate the purpose of pushing the right message.

Edit:
Also..
Quote:
Me: Did you or your ancestors benefit from living in this country under those laws by getting employed, educated, living without fear of invasion, owning personal property that is protected from thieves, having access to technology and other essential aspects of living in a civilized society?
If you believe any of those are only possible through the existence of the state, you're wrong. The only thing that you closely have a point on is a military.

tony286 07-01-2012 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tijuana_Tom (Post 19034163)
Right now the people who do not have insurance are costing you tax dollars that the government doesn't have.

How is this soo hard to understand? Eventually Americans have to start paying more taxes.

You know these same people crying about Obamacare will be the first to cry about their neighbor who was refused treatment. lol.
Obamacare is the dole plan, the right embraced as a response to hilarycare. But now its obama's its socialist, nazi, martian ,etc etc etc.

If something serious happens, where you need surgery and a extended hospital stay. Very few can pay that out of pocket in reality.

Rochard 07-01-2012 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 19033664)
I know of another family that has a special needs child and they make 300k+ a year but there child gets free nursing that is being paid for by the state
And your point is?

The average nurse makes $75k a year, and would only cover a single eight hour shift five days a week. Then factor in this nurse would have days off, sick days, and vacation days, and your already talking a lot more than one third of their $300k salary.

$300k a year is damn good money, but if one third of that is going out the door for special needs, something is wrong with that.

Chris 07-01-2012 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19034325)
And your point is?

The average nurse makes $75k a year, and would only cover a single eight hour shift five days a week. Then factor in this nurse would have days off, sick days, and vacation days, and your already talking a lot more than one third of their $300k salary.

$300k a year is damn good money, but if one third of that is going out the door for special needs, something is wrong with that.
my point was that the private insurance they use could cover it but instead they where told to use our government when this family is capable of paying the insurance cost

IllTestYourGirls 07-01-2012 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19034316)
Obamacare is the dole plan, the right embraced as a response to hilarycare. But now its obama's its socialist, nazi, martian ,etc etc etc.

If something serious happens, where you need surgery and a extended hospital stay. Very few can pay that out of pocket in reality.
And the democrats by supporting it now are not? I have said this before if Obama did not get into office McCain would have put in place what is now known as Obamacare and both sides would have switched the fence and would be arguing the opposite of what they are now. Nothing but a bunch of cattle letting big business and corrupt politicians strip them of their rights.

Right now the ruling class can not lose. They have Obama vs Romney. Romney wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with his own. Which would just be a name change.

galleryseek 07-01-2012 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls (Post 19034338)
And the democrats by supporting it now are not? I have said this before if Obama did not get into office McCain would have put in place what is now known as Obamacare and both sides would have switched the fence and would be arguing the opposite of what they are now. Nothing but a bunch of cattle letting big business and corrupt politicians strip them of their rights.

Right now the ruling class can not lose. They have Obama vs Romney. Romney wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with his own. Which would just be a name change.
Exactly, it's Obomney 2012. Like you said, the ruling class own both of those puppets (and the ones before them as well). Romneycare == Obamacare except on a state level, that's the only damn difference.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ml_35u1Dzy...0/Obomney1.png

Relentless 07-01-2012 06:29 PM
Galleryseek,

Your point is valid IF we are talking about forming a new Country with a new Constitution and new laws. Unfortunately for you, this country has already existed for hundreds of years and done just fine before you got here,while you have been here and most likely will continue along on the same foundation long after you have gone from it. In UnicornLand TM we can have a government ruled by singular minority viewpoints and funded via 'when I feel like it' donations. This country however will not become UnicornLand TM... to live there all you need to do is find a sovereign land mass and start drafting your new articles of independent governance.*

*For step two I strongly recommend fielding a robust military.
You will need it if you plan to remain sovergn for any length of time.
---------

Minte,

I used to think you were an overly self-important curmudgeon.
I was glad to find a sense of humor in you as well ;)

Helix 07-01-2012 06:33 PM
Obama is a globalist. His upbringing and early life experiences gave him the view that he has today. He see's American's as having an unfair advantage over the rest of the world population. Everything he has done and will continue to do if re-elected will be his best effort to level the playing field. His vision for this country is not in our best interest.

Relentless 07-01-2012 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helix (Post 19034381)
Obama is a globalist. His upbringing and early life experiences gave him the view that he has today. He see's American's as having an unfair advantage over the rest of the world population. Everything he has done and will continue to do if re-elected will be his best effort to level the playing field. His vision for this country is not in our best interest.
Yes, his decision to rescue American automakers and banks was part of a master plan primarily designed to raise up the third world. Only by saving AIG, GM and using drone strikes against people in Pakistan can he ever hope to empower Jamaica enough to overthrow Florida! He is Bob Marley, Karl Marx and Pol Pot all rolled into one!

baddog 07-01-2012 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tijuana_Tom (Post 19034160)
I'm american you fail psychic.



If you don't have insurance and you get into an accident causing $500k in damage what happens?

You think you just walk away? :1orglaugh

It protects everyone.
You're a fucking idiot no matter where you are from


Quote:
Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls (Post 19034230)
People comparing ObamaTax to buying car insurance = biggest retards of all. :1orglaugh
Amen

galleryseek 07-01-2012 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19034377)
Galleryseek,

Your point is valid IF we are talking about forming a new Country with a new Constitution and new laws. Unfortunately for you, this country has already existed for hundreds of years and done just fine before you got here,while you have been here and most likely will continue along on the same foundation long after you have gone from it.
It's not about country, a constitution or laws. It's about promoting a single principle and engraving it in the minds of as many people possible; and that's non-aggression. As soon as that happens, the state will cease to exist.

We've evolved past many things; slavery, the subjugation of women, denial of property rights and more, and at a time in history, all societies viewed those things as perfectly normal, but to a large degree not anymore. This is what needs to happen with the removal of the state as a way to solve problems by force.

So no, I'm not going to leave and try to start Unicornland TM, instead I'll focus on slowly but surely educating others I encounter by pointing out the logical flaws with the system they endorse. :)

Helix 07-01-2012 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relentless (Post 19034385)
Yes, his decision to rescue American automakers and banks was part of a master plan primarily designed to raise up the third world. Only by saving AIG, GM and using drone strikes against people in Pakistan can he ever hope to empower Jamaica enough to overthrow Florida! He is Bob Marley, Karl Marx and Pol Pot all rolled into one!
Yes, you are correct. He gave taxpayer moneys to invest in American Automakers, Insurance Companies and Banks without any oversight or return, The money's have not been paid back in full, or with a profit as promised. Only losses.

His goal isn't to raise up the 3rd world to our level, his goal is to lower us to the 3rd worlds level.

Relentless 07-01-2012 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 19034406)
So no, I'm not going to leave and try to start Unicornland TM, instead I'll focus on slowly but surely educating others I encounter by pointing out the logical flaws with the system they endorse. :)
Peacefully trying to change the country by using the methods legally available to you is an admirable endeavor. I wish you luck in convincing the world that all force is wrong. In the interim, I am hopeful that a better healthcare system is possible and that this is the early steps toward one. The basic purpose of being in a society is that it is easier, not harder, to get access to necessities like shelter, food, medical care and community by agreeing to give up a small amount of privacy and autonomy for the greater good. Somewhere along the way blind capitalism managed to confuse the necessity of health care with the luxury list of things that ought to be in the purview of private for-profit industry. The same is being tried with our food supply and the results are no better. I believe we will eventually get it right, by allowing private industry to workat the core of luxuries and edges of necessities, rather than supplanting itself in the place of a government of the people for the people.

Though many would argue that's my own version of UnicornLand TM, I continue to work toward it publicly in words and privately in deeds.;)

Relentless 07-01-2012 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helix (Post 19034414)
His goal isn't to raise up the 3rd world to our level, his goal is to lower us to the 3rd worlds level.
Ahhh, now it all makes sense. He is like a jilted exlover of the United States and he wants to get back at us for making him the leader of our country. Imagine the scorn he would have felt for us if we didn't choose to elect him to be the President of United States! I bet when Hillary comes back from diplomatic missions overseas, the two of them discuss the worst things she saw and then laugh together while smoking cigars and figuring out how to import problems from third world nations like illiteracy, malaria and clan based genocide. Hmmm, on second thought Hillary probably doesn't smoke cigars because of the whole sordid episode with Ms Lewinsky... But still, as fictional as it is, it does make for interesting theater of the mind. Obama wants us to be a 3rd world country... He just isn't very good at making it happen. THe Banks and Automakers and Killing Bin Laden and healthcare are all 'mistakes in his master plan'....

Now it all makes so much sense. Thank you?

Paul Markham 07-01-2012 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog (Post 19034087)
Because the hospital is receiving government funding to operate the ER. They won't let me stay after they got me patched up.
Anything other than an accident, you'll have to see if you qualify.

Paul Markham 07-01-2012 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSenator (Post 19034083)
Medicare for all should be implemented to cover all Americans.
If Americans paid what they paid into private Medical Health into a Medicare system, everyone would be covered, people would live longer and better lives and the Health Care industry would make less money. So it will never happen.

Paul Markham 07-02-2012 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helix (Post 19034414)
His goal isn't to raise up the 3rd world to our level, his goal is to lower us to the 3rd worlds level.
Don't worry. Americans are doing all they can to help him.

Personal stories of American Health Care.

1988 my Father who had a heart bypass op, had an aneurism a year later. The paramedics rushed him to the nearest SoCal hospital with a helicopter so they could airlift him to Harbor Hospital Long Beach. The SoCal hospital decide to start doing tests as they thought a man with this operation would have insurance. They had no experience, staff or equipment to deal with his problem, yet did the tests rather than fly him to where he could get the care. After much testing, he died later that day. My Mum was sent the bill for the testing, she told them to GF themselves.

My Mother was a diabetic and self medicating with a US drug. It was so expensive my Brother drove to Mexico where he could buy it over the counter for 25% of the US price. While there he found he could get refills for a syringe to inject insulin, all he needs was the special syringe. It and the refills are not for sale in the US, so he bought them in Mexico and the UK at a fraction of the costs. Same drugs, same syringe manufactured by the US company. Just not the same profit margins.

My Brother was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer, the bill was $40k to fix it, plus add ons. He flew to England, got operated on under the National Health and flew back for check ups, it was cheaper. Getting him insured now will cost $1,500 a month.

My cousin plays College Soccer, he's covered if he breaks a lag on the pitch. Yet a swelling on his knee due to playing isn't covered and he needs a CT scan to find the problem. $4,500 for the scan as his insurance doesn't cover him for this. He plays College Soccer. His cover ends when the whistle blows to end the game.

The problem isn't the prices, the lack of cover, etc. It's the shitty service for the money you guys are charged.

theking 07-02-2012 12:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 19034578)
Anything other than an accident, you'll have to see if you qualify.
Wrong...clueless.

theking 07-02-2012 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 19034634)
Don't worry. Americans are doing all they can to help him.

Personal stories of American Health Care.

1988 my Father who had a heart bypass op, had an aneurism a year later. The paramedics rushed him to the nearest SoCal hospital with a helicopter so they could airlift him to Harbor Hospital Long Beach. The SoCal hospital decide to start doing tests as they thought a man with this operation would have insurance. They had no experience, staff or equipment to deal with his problem, yet did the tests rather than fly him to where he could get the care. After much testing, he died later that day. My Mum was sent the bill for the testing, she told them to GF themselves.

My Mother was a diabetic and self medicating with a US drug. It was so expensive my Brother drove to Mexico where he could buy it over the counter for 25% of the US price. While there he found he could get refills for a syringe to inject insulin, all he needs was the special syringe. It and the refills are not for sale in the US, so he bought them in Mexico and the UK at a fraction of the costs. Same drugs, same syringe manufactured by the US company. Just not the same profit margins.

My Brother was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer, the bill was $40k to fix it, plus add ons. He flew to England, got operated on under the National Health and flew back for check ups, it was cheaper. Getting him insured now will cost $1,500 a month.

My cousin plays College Soccer, he's covered if he breaks a lag on the pitch. Yet a swelling on his knee due to playing isn't covered and he needs a CT scan to find the problem. $4,500 for the scan as his insurance doesn't cover him for this. He plays College Soccer. His cover ends when the whistle blows to end the game.

The problem isn't the prices, the lack of cover, etc. It's the shitty service for the money you guys are charged.
Hmm...I have never received shitty service...and I am not charged anything...if I choose not to be...but I am covered by the VA and go to a VA hospital for anything major.

Barry-xlovecam 07-02-2012 05:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking (Post 19034654)
Hmm...I have never received shitty service...and I am not charged anything...if I choose not to be...but I am covered by the VA and go to a VA hospital for anything major.
You earned your Lifetime VA coverage as a benefit of being a soldier, that's fine with me. However, that doesn't help the working "poor" non-vet who is uninsured for healthcare by their employer or cannot afford to buy his own insurance.

VA healthcare and Medicare are examples of a single-payer government healthcare -- they work but are problematic.

Medicare for everyone sounds nice but 1.45% employer/employee or 2.9% both is not enough to run the system beyond its current age and entitlement statuses without limited services or deficits. If there was universal healthcare tax at a rate less than 12% it would be a game changer for people that have some form of private insurance depending on both the level and quality of services.

Quote:
[In 2009, the United States federal, state and local governments, corporations and individuals, together spent $2.5 trillion, $8,047 per person, on health care. This amount represented 17.3% of the GDP, ...
 *(2012??)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...tates#Spending
There is a lot of fat in the system and they are protecting the corporate (profit and non profit) "pork" in healthcare spending. Manufacturing businesses go broke or outsource with the healthcare industry becoming the new profit center -- this cannot be sustained and we are seeing its economic results.

If people are uninsured because they want to game the system they should not receive any services that they cannot pay up front for Cash, VISA/MC ...

Paul FYI, Medicare government healthcare for retirees (65+) and SSI (disability). Medicaid is government healthcare for public assistance (welfare or 'on the dole') recipients and some working poor or dependent children whose parent's employers do not cover them


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:44 PM.
Page 4 of 5 < 123 4 5 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123