Funny health care reform ad

Published on September 12th, 2009

Not sure if it is for or against.

58 users responded in " Funny health care reform ad "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on September 12th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

“Not sure if it is for or against.” /// Yea, I think this is an example of something being “too clever by half.” I think it intends to Mock/be against UNIVERSAL health coverage, but actually it points to the simple common sense of “imposing common sense” on people.

Yes imposing common sense on people is a violation of their individual rights. Just like mandatory education is a violation of individual rights to remain ignorant.

# 2 Alfred1 said, on September 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Obvious satire against the idea people can’t afford their own health insurance…

# 3 ECA said, on September 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

Im sorry..
Health insurgence is Giving someone $300-1000 per month, and then THEY can tell you AFTER an accident that you arnt covered.
Its spending $300 per year for 10-20 years..
$3600 per year…
$36000-72000 and Staying healthy, and NOT getting anything back…When you retire..AND NO insurance AFTER 3-6 months AFTER you retire.

# 4 Alfred1 said, on September 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

Guilherme, don’t punk out…don’t let the usual left loons, foaming at the mouth, scare you off.

You knew it was satire.

Say so.

The day I noticed a non left nutball was blogging here, I sent in a $100 donation…

I bet others were so motivated, when you started blogging here.

As for DU ridding itself of advertisements, as though that would keep it impartial…too late, the loons rule the roost.

You sir, are a breath of fresh air.

# 5 AdmFubar said, on September 12th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

#3 wow! lemme in on tha t$300 dollar a year health plan! i’d save a boat load of cash with that!

# 6 Amsterdamnation said, on September 12th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Here’s what America should do:

Hook up methane collectors to the asses of fat people, feed them a steady diet of beans, and use that to power generators to make electricity to pay for healthcare for skinny people.

Like the Matrix, but with beans.

# 7 Ron Larson said, on September 12th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

#1 is right….

I often wonder about these rabid idiots who are so dead set against universal health care. They drive cars. To them I ask: How would you feel if your state made auto liability insurance optional? Would you be happy knowing there there are tons of people driving the roads without insurance because they can’t be bothered? Or because they can’t manage their own money?

Most states have made the decision that people must have a minimum level of insurance to drive a car. They know from experience that stupid people will spend that money on booze, jeans, and other nonessentials before they buy insurance for something that probably won’t happen.

If the state allowed drivers to insurance themselves the way we allow people to insure their health, then we get the health mess like we have today.

Now the argument is for those who have the means to pay for health insurance must be forced to do so, either through mandatory insurance (like in Mass.), or taxes.

There are many Americans who have no money, some through no fault of their own. If they get sick, we tell them “tough shit”. That is not right.

Then there are many who are refused insurance because of preexisting conditions. Or denied or cancelled coverage. These cases are the worst abuses by private insurance. As long as even one such case of this exists, then no one can argue that 100% private medical insurance works. It doesn’t. It is flawed and can not be fixed.

# 8 Loupe Garou said, on September 12th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

#7 Ron Larson said,”To them I ask: How would you feel if your state made auto liability insurance optional? Would you be happy knowing there there are tons of people driving the roads without insurance because they can’t be bothered? Or because they can’t manage their own money?”

Already there man, we call them illegals.

# 9 deowll said, on September 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

The actual number of American citizens who really don’t have and can’t get medical insurance seems to be about 5,000,000 and of course if you are a fat diabetic or have any sort of chronic health problem nobody wants to take you on.

This needs to be addressed some way but I don’t expect nor want anyone including the President as an ex President to get unlimited coverage with the tax payer picking up the tab. I’d cap it at a million lifetime.

The problem is that they are going to need to save more than is in medicare to pay for their plan.

If they know how to get rid of the waste in medicare all they have to do to convince me is to do it. If they don’t I can only think they can’t and their fine new plan is to cut payments for seniors to the bone, run up taxes on everybody and everything and run the country on the printing press will the dollar falls like a rock.

# 10 ECA said, on September 12th, 2009 at 7:33 pm

dEOWLL,
only 5 million??
When 1 person works they end up paying for FAMILY. at least 1 wife and 2 kids.
I consider those NON-working persons.
I also count those persons on the street, at about 6%, 18,000,000.
NOW, all those persons that hit the unemployment line?? 9%++ thats in the areas of 27,000,000 also.
NOW all the working people that get 32 hours or LESS arnt covered by medical.. WHICH is about 30% of our work force, AT the very least.
Thats Another 90,000,000..
NOW take that, and THINK about what paying Workmens comp, and MEDICAL for a full time person costs a company…And say..7% of his wages. YEP, thats whats paid. 7% is whats paid for a full time employee.
An employee making full time, getting $1400 per month. $98..for his FULL COVERAGE.

# 11 mpburton said, on September 12th, 2009 at 7:59 pm

It’s reason.tv, which means libertarian. I think we can safely assume they are against government intervention into health care.

# 12 DA said, on September 12th, 2009 at 8:07 pm

Health care is not expensive, even with our current quasi-socialized corporatist system.

I pay $50 a month for catastrophic insurance. If something serious happens to me I’m covered. If not, then I pay out of pocket.

It would be MUCH cheaper still if we actually had something resembling a free market in health care.

Bobbo, If you say “the free market is a theoretical construct” I’m going to stab you through the Internet.

# 13 NOTbobbo said, on September 12th, 2009 at 8:12 pm

NOTbobbo says:

The idea that initiating force against people to achieve your own ends is moral is a theoretical construct.

# 14 simongiln said, on September 12th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Forget Capitalism. This ad is pro- Social Darwinism. Wasn’t that philosophy supposed to have died out after WWII?

Let the weak and stupid die off…We’re better without them…?

On a strictly a-moral level, the argument has mild merit, but when you start suggesting that fiscal intelligence is more important than any other type of strength or intelligence, you’re system is broken.

That’s the biggest problem with Social Darwinism: *how* exactly are you going about judging others as unworthy? There’s no “fair” way to go about doing it systemically, thus you shouldn’t be doing it.

# 15 Number 6 said, on September 12th, 2009 at 8:35 pm

#14,

I just get nervous when around the people who think they are so much smarter than everyone else, that forcing them to do what they want is clear.

When you can’t educate, debate, persuade or provide the help yourself, use force. That’s a dangerous road.

# 16 simongiln said, on September 12th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

#15

Taxation *with* representation doesn’t qualify as fascism, Number 6. No one is going to imprison you for not having health insurance. You’ll just be taxed for being stupid.

Now, if I were to walk around without clothes, I just might get imprisoned. How’s that fair? My lack of insurance raises healthcare costs for everyone else, but my lack of clothes (which harms no one) is somehow more illegal…

# 17 Number 6 said, on September 12th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

#16,

And if I don’t pay those taxes, for doing what the enlightened ones decide is stupid?

Government always comes down to force. It may be justified in some cases (for instance in defending against murder or other acts of force), but just thinking I’m smarter than others isn’t justification, its hubris.

# 18 simongiln said, on September 12th, 2009 at 9:29 pm

#17

Okay, but you didn’t bother to answer my question: Why is it okay for the government to force me to buy and wear clothes, but it’s not okay for the government to tax me for not buying health insurance?

I don’t like the mandate either. His opposition to mandates is a reason why I liked Obama more than Clinton. But it is not fascist. If forcing me to wear cloths in public isn’t fascist, than neither is forcing me to have health insurance.

It’s easy to speak loftily about libertarian ideals, but a policy isn’t automatically wrong, simply because you can’t see the forest as more than individual trees. That’s the difference between the *general welfare* and your *personal welfare*.

We have a representative democracy because the founders knew that a straight democracy is detrimental to society as a whole. Look at the ballot/proposition system (or whatever you call it) in California for evidence.

It’s not about them being smarter. As part of the federal government, it’s their job to deal with the forest (general welfare) as opposed to individual trees (personal welfare). If everyone buys into the system, the cost of doing so goes down universally. That’s all.

# 19 Number 6 said, on September 12th, 2009 at 9:49 pm

#18,

I’m not a big fan of people running around nude. And I would insist on eating only at restaurants that enforce a “No pants, no service” rule, or shop at malls that insist on clothed patrons. And I see a role for government to enforce the property rights against trespassers. That’s a good example of where it makes sense to use force since they’ve initiated force by violating the property rights of the restaurant or the mall.

You are right, a policy isn’t automatically wrong … but no matter how easy it is to speak of forests and trees and how some people have a perspective I apparently lack, I still don’t see I have a right to advocate for the use of force in any but a defensive way.

I’ve yet to see the perspective that gives me that right, and therefore the right to ask my representatives to do so.

Oh, and I never used the word fascist. It isn’t.

I just don’t see that I have a moral leg to stand on when advocating the initiation of force. No matter how right I think I am.

# 20 ECA said, on September 12th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

14,
I love the idea that you WORK yourself for 20-40 years, and end up dieing 5-7 years after you retire.
LOVE the idea that you have a medical problem, and are out of work for 3 months and IT STOPS, unless you can pay the $300+ per month.
or
yOUR MOTHER IS 70 YEARS OLD..Has to MUCH property, cars and such..And CANT get Medicare coverage.
You retire, and your diabetic supplies were paid for…NOW they arent..You made a retirement fund, and MEDICARE wont let you on.
You and your wife WORK to make ends meet, but are not considered full time on EITHER JOB..NO MEDICAL. you kid gets hurt. $10,000.

# 21 simongiln said, on September 12th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

#19

Fair enough, but can we *at least* agree that the anti-nudity laws are worse than this one? How about the anti-sodomy laws?

As I said, I don’t like the mandate either, but I think it’s good to have a sense of perspective on these things. There are far more offensive laws on the books than ones that actually result in promoting the general welfare (as suggested by the constitution). When we go out protesting, I thing we aught to *at least* prioritise other laws before this one.

And out of curiosity, would you have less of a problem with the government simply *giving* you health insurance, rather than forcing you to buy into it?

# 22 Number 6 said, on September 12th, 2009 at 10:28 pm

#21, said:

“Fair enough, but can we *at least* agree that the anti-nudity laws are worse than this one? How about the anti-sodomy laws?”

Yes.

And your point about perspective is well taken. There are certainly worse things going on, by far. I suppose that’s why I was in an anti-war march but for this issue I just post on blogs.

On the giving thing … the only issue I’d have is where the money came from to pay for it. I don’t like the idea of receiving stolen goods.

# 23 Uncle Patso said, on September 12th, 2009 at 10:35 pm

So reason.tv is libertarian? That explains the Cato Institute videos…

# 24 Traaxx said, on September 12th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist: “mandatory education is a violation of individual rights”, “imposing common sense on people is a violation of their individual rights”, hee haa hee haa hee haa – what a moron.

You can still go to school and not learn anything, as you amply show. If you want to impose “COMMON SENSE”, then you just might end up killing all the Demoncrats. Not having health insurance and getting sick and dying should be right up your Darwin alley, but then you couldn’t get off on telling people what to do, could you? Dying is a means of imposing “COMMON SENSE”, not voting for a Globalist like President Hussein would have been “COMMON SENSE”, understanding that when President Hussein say’s that he won’t insure the illegal’s, he really means that there won’t be any illegal’s sense even now he’s going to give away citizenship to anyone and everyone.

Another Brainwashed Induh!vidual rushing themselves into the 2nd Dark Ages.

Whatever……………………….
Traaxx

# 25 ECA said, on September 13th, 2009 at 12:28 am

Traxx..

Boboo, is a good debater..
he is trying to be NEUTRAL..

# 26 Scott said, on September 13th, 2009 at 1:01 am

The first place that came up on google with the figures shows 45.8 million people without healthcare. See
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=631
How is that acceptable in a democracy?

In the UK, we have 0(zero/none/nada) without healthcare. Yes, we only spend half per head what you guys do but we do have ‘experts’ working on that.
A friend was diagnosed with breat cancer a few years ago. She was in hospital that afternoon and operated on next morning. No waiting list there. She then got the chemotherapy etc as and when needed. I phone my doctor and get an appointment for 30 minutes later – no waiting list there either.
The biggest list we do have would be hugely sorted by more people carrying donor cards. Yes, we are short of kidneys and stuff. I suspect you guys have the same problem. You can still get your dialysis free here.

# 27 Alfred1 said, on September 13th, 2009 at 3:45 am

#1 is wrong, there is no constitutional authority for Government imposed “common sense” or any sense…that’s tyranny.

As for your argument, health insurance = auto insurance, that is impossible, one doesn’t run over other people with their bad health.

Car insurance is not to insure the car get fixed, although that can be bought, its to pay the medical bills of those one hurts with their car…Liability is mandatory, not collision.

Your apples to oranges logic is unsound.

# 28 Grandpa said, on September 13th, 2009 at 6:13 am

Obviously produced by Republicans to enrage and create fear over government subsidized health care. It’s not funny. It’s disgusting. The rich people of this country need to met their moral and civic responsibilities and help those who have not. The rich are the ones that shipped the jobs overseas and they are the ones who benefited from that. So they are the ones that should help pay for health care. We wouldn’t even need Obamacare were it not for them! Don’t take this shit sitting down, speak out now!!!!!

# 29 LibertyLover said, on September 13th, 2009 at 7:20 am

#7, I often wonder about these rabid idiots who are so dead set against universal health care. They drive cars. To them I ask: How would you feel if your state made auto liability insurance optional? Would you be happy knowing there there are tons of people driving the roads without insurance because they can’t be bothered? Or because they can’t manage their own money?

Not exactly a good analogy. If the Federal Government were to get involved in car insurance as deeply as they are in HC:

– Car insurance would be covering oil changes, gas, tires, etc.
– All mechanics would belong to the AMA (American Mechanics Association) and would have to attend AMA sanctioned trade schools (while taking out $150,000 school loans to pay for it)
– All repairs would have to be approved by Federally Certified Approvers
– You would only be able to work on your own car with Federally Certified tools
– You would have to get any parts from Federally Certified Auto Parts Stores.
– You wouldn’t be able to help your neighbor with any car problems unless you were a member of the AMA . . . malpractice.
– Mechanics would have to have malpractice insurance.
– And lets not even get into the manufacturing laws that would be required (although I could see some lemon laws bordering on abortion laws).

At which point, people would be clamoring for National Car Insurance.

Federal Medical Regulations are 330,000 pages long. How many pages do you estimate a NEW Federal Program would add or subtract to that?

Besides, the Federal Government doesn’t have the authorization as per the Constitution.

# 30 LibertyLover said, on September 13th, 2009 at 7:21 am

#18, It’s not about them being smarter. As part of the federal government, it’s their job to deal with the forest (general welfare) as opposed to individual trees (personal welfare). If everyone buys into the system, the cost of doing so goes down universally. That’s all.

As evidenced by the bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security systems? Everybody pays into that but not everybody uses it and it can’t even stay afloat.

Seems to me that should be all the evidence we need that the Federal Government can’t manage a system of that magnitude.

Besides, the Federal Government doesn’t have the authorization as per the Constitution.

# 31 eaglescout1998 said, on September 13th, 2009 at 7:37 am

#28. When the government forces the people be charitable, that is not compassion; it’s compulsion. I am not a biblical scholar or anything of that nature, but I very much doubt the Good Samaritan that Jesus spoke of assisted the Jew at the tip of the Roman’s spear.

If you’re going to make the argument that the rich need to “meet their moral and civic duty”, are you going to make that request to people like George Soros and Ophrah Winfrey?

As much as these rich liberals cry out about the uninsured, I am shocked that they don’t pull their collective resources together and build a pool of capital large enough to purchase policies for these folks.

# 32 Rick said, on September 13th, 2009 at 7:39 am

Leaving aside secondary discussions (above) of Government’s rights/role in healthcare…this kind of video is just ridiculous, emotional rhetorical crap. May as well watch for the counterpoint when someone asks some white executives about their mansions or yachts (or you fill in the stereotype)…then says “because no billionaire should have to choose between mansions and affordable healthcare”…it’s all off the point.

There is NO free market in healthcare right now. People can’t “walk” if the insurance companies all fix prices (which is all it is)…there is no company coming in low to drive prices down and no way (often because of legislation) the regular folks can bargain collectively as to exert this pressure.

Reminds me a little of Comcast (cable)…sure, I hate them. There are websites dedicated to them. Now, if I want to get mad at their billing department or their company at all, how do I leave them and still purchase the actual content with which I had no argument? I can’t. If I get fed up with my health insurance company, or in fact all of them, what do I do? I stand my ground and let the chemo fall behind, right? That’ll show ‘em!

With all this talk of insurance and illegals and driving with/without insurance…I can only assume the same folks saying this would say driving is a privilege not a right, and it carries with it some “terms” that must be met to get to do it. I got NO problem saying making money in America in the health industry is a privilege, not a right. Now, how about the people who allow that privilege set some terms that work for everyone.

# 33 Anonymous Joe said, on September 13th, 2009 at 7:49 am

The ONLY reason the health industry is as messed up as it is can be summed up in one word – LAWYERS! And Washington is stupid with GREEDY lawyers too. It’s simply amazing to me that the health care industry isn’t even more broken than it already is. But once Washington get’s involved I’m sure it’s all going to change, and for the better too! Right?!

If you believe THAT then you might also be interested in some real estate property on the moon!

# 34 LibertyLover said, on September 13th, 2009 at 7:52 am

#32, The answer to your question is to get government out of the way.

330,000 pages of regulations is way too much for anybody to feasibly manage without raising the costs to hire a team of compliance people.

How much money do you think a simple visit to the doctor’s office would cost you if that doctor wasn’t hampered by those regulations?

# 35 Rick said, on September 13th, 2009 at 8:39 am

#34 with all the hardships you seem to see put on the health insurance industry, it is a wonder they are able to run with such profits and corporate salaries. It’s a closed system, do you think there is NO one who would gladly do Mr. Insurance CEO’s job for 3/4 or 1/2 his income? I bet there are a few…they just don’t happen to already run insurance companies…and they have very little chance of opening up shop outside the bounds of the established game.

# 36 simongiln said, on September 13th, 2009 at 10:16 am

#27: “As for your argument, health insurance = auto insurance, that is impossible, one doesn’t run over other people with their bad health.”

True, but my lack of Insurance raises Health Insurance costs for everyone else, even if I never go to the ER for “FREE” care, that you’d end up paying for too. Again, when everyone buys into the system, costs come down universally (bigger pool==lower rates).

Again, I don’t like the mandate either, but fundamentally it’s not an invalid idea.

#29: “As evidenced by the bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security systems? Everybody pays into that but not everybody uses it and it can’t even stay afloat.”

As a result of private sector costs; not actual costs of running Medicare (Social Security is a different discussion). Systemic costs for healthcare have risen, but Medicare revenue has not gone up (unlike private insurance). And actually, the people who use Medicare *don’t* pay into it, and that’s part of the problem. If we simply gave people below 65 the option to buy into the system by paying a little more, we could easily deal with the revenue problem.

#29: “Besides, the Federal Government doesn’t have the authorisation as per the Constitution.”

Reread Article III Section 2 & Article I Section 8: In short, Interstate Commerce + General Welfare + Supreme Court Rulings = Legal Right. The FBI isn’t innumerated in the constitution either, yet that’s considered legal. Hell, a standing army isn’t even innumerated in the constitution: “To raise and support Armies, **but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years**” (Article I, Section 8).

Sorry, but I’m of the opinion that Interstate Commerce and General Welfare were put in the constitution for a reason. And even if they weren’t, the Supreme Court thinks they were, which comes to the same result.

#33 “The ONLY reason the health industry is as messed up as it is can be summed up in one word – LAWYERS!”

And you think lawyers are a bigger problem in the healthcare industry than in any other industry because why? No other industry is shielded from lawsuits, yet we still live in the richest nation in the world. Tort Reform is, and has always been, a red herring. Many states have tried it, and it’s always failed to result in lower costs for consumers.

And even if it did result in lower costs, I wouldn’t support that sort of bastardisation of our legal system. The judiciary is the most important protector of our rights. I would never support castrating it in such a way.

# 37 LibertyLover said, on September 13th, 2009 at 10:29 am

#36, True, but my lack of Insurance raises Health Insurance costs for everyone else, even if I never go to the ER for “FREE” care, that you’d end up paying for too.

True. And why is that? Maybe because the government dictated that hospitals must take all comers, which raises their costs, which raises everyone rates?

This is the fault of the government, not the uninsured.

Reread Article III Section 2 & Article I Section 8: In short, Interstate Commerce + General Welfare + Supreme Court Rulings = Legal Right.

Ah, yes, the General Welfare argument. That clause for the nation as a whole, not individuals. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to see what that clause was really meant to be for.

Interstate Commerce — Yeah, we’ve heard that argument before, too, to cover everything. Never for HC, though. Interstate Commerce is just that — Commerce — not a reason to implement a government handout.

# 38 Rick said, on September 13th, 2009 at 10:43 am

#37 so, from a government point of view it’d be better to allow hospitals to reject patients? I’m not saying that I can’t see your point (I am all for rules that negate the “cost” to others that I apparently would cause if I were to ride without a helmet or seatbelt – let it be my choice, my cost). Apart from the odd equation of the two there is a big difference between an environment in which people choose not to do the best option and one in which the system has built up processes and procedures (rules) that make it not even a choice. I don’t buy that most people who are not insured are buying jeans with white threads instead of insurance.

More to the point of your comment, however, is that you just suggested that monetary pressure is a good enough reason to deny someone coverage. Isn’t one of the big conservative push-backs centered on how Obama would let Granny die because she cost too much? And how is this not the same as denying coverage to someone who had no money?

Full circle…Granny can’t afford hospital A, so why not let Granny go to cheap-version Hospital B? Oh yeah, because A and B are both well fit and prices, the lowest ones, are unusually and unnaturally high. There is no option for Granny.

I once had a math teacher who, when I said “I’ll never need to know this to balance my checkbook” replied that he hoped I’d want to do more with my time than just be able to balance a check-book. Seems to me we can debate all day about right and freedom and all that, but at the end I don’t believe there really is anyone with the right motivations who really doesn’t/wouldn’t want to do more than just balance our checkbook. Show me who really thinks it’d be ok to let Granny die…and then I’ll show you where they stand to make a buck on her death.

# 39 LibertyLover said, on September 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am

#35, with all the hardships you seem to see put on the health insurance industry, it is a wonder they are able to run with such profits and corporate salaries.

That statement should tell you something in and of itself.

Companies are going to make money or they are going to go out business.

The way to make money is to raise the rates.

I wasn’t talking about it hard it was on the companies. They will just raise their rates to compensate. It’s the customers who suffer.

I own a successful business. When my overhead gets too high (taxes are overhead), I raise my rates. Do you really think I am eating it on my bottom line?

Nope.

You do, but paying more for your water, sewage, electricity, etc.

And I stay in business because my competitors are doing the same thing.

# 40 LibertyLover said, on September 13th, 2009 at 10:52 am

#38, No, it is not good to let people die for lack of access to health care.

But you have to understand that the reason they don’t have access is because HC has gotten too expense because gov regulations have made it too expensive.

Adding MORE regulations is not going to solve the problem. Something will have to give — it will either get more expensive or the quality will go down for everyone. Those are the only two outcomes.

Return HC to the service industry where it belongs and get the government out of the equation. They got us in the mess, not insurance companies.

# 41 Cursor_ said, on September 13th, 2009 at 10:54 am

Maybe I’m the only one in this nation, hell probably the whole planet, that believes our government should protect us from threats both foreign and domestic.

And it is the domestic threat of disease that can sack the people and bring economic and military disaster.

Am I the only one that sees health care on demand is an issue of national security?

I must be.

Cursor_

# 42 LibertyLover said, on September 13th, 2009 at 11:05 am

#41, Nope. I understand and fear the same thing.

But the problem isn’t the industry.

It is the 330,000 pages of regulations they have to follow.

The Federal Government is the Clear and Present Danger to this country.

# 43 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on September 13th, 2009 at 11:18 am

#40–LIEBERTARIAN==I wish you’d give up the ghost so I didn’t have to be so rambunctious to balance your nonsense.

But you continue your immature self centered silliness bringing down who knows how many on the margin?

I AM A LIBERTARIAN. YOU ARE AN IDIOT USING LIBERTARIANISM AS DOGMA. big difference.

Is taxation slavery?–No.
Does taxation intrude on personal liberty?–Yes.
Does living in a society require compromises of personal liberty?–Yes.
Is there any way at all to avoid this?–No.

The relevant issue is NOT is this too many rules, but only “Is this rule appropriate or not?”

People disagree as LIEBERTARIAN so consistently shows. How to resolve this difference as compliance with law cannot be a individual free choice? The USA has chosen a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC with strong elements of democracy.

Sorry LIEBERTY LOSER–you are and will be out voted because the majority of people “tend to” vote what is best for the majority of people.

Saw a special last night on TV. Seems Rwanda, yes RWANDA, has better health care than the USA==IF you measure it by compliance to anti-aides medical protocols. ((Still taking drugs after two years.))

Its amusing, we see it everywhere in our society and in LIEBERTY’S ravings==money actually interferes in some basic functions of society, with the ability to think clearly, with the rational goal to make society a better place for ALL of us to live==unless you prefer 24/7 armed guards behind a security wall. Seems some people really are greedy, the Midas Touch. I rather think we are all greedy in this way from time to time.

Let not the better Angels of your humanitarian impluses be turned to short term self interest.

Ebb and Flow.

# 44 simongiln said, on September 13th, 2009 at 11:30 am

#37

Social Darwinism at it’s finest.

Also, it’s fine to disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions, but the constitution itself delegates who’s constitutional opinions are valid, and it’s the Supreme Court (Article III Section 2). Pretty much all other opinions are just heckling from the bleachers. If Social Security is constitutionally legal under the welfare clause (Helvering v. Davis), then there’s no reason Healthcare reform wouldn’t be. Also, the idea that Heathcare–an industry that takes up a sixth of the US economy–doesn’t qualify as commerce is rather silly.

#40 (same dude/-et)

In one post, saying costs are too high *because* everyone gets covered, then in another saying you *want* everyone to get covered, and they would if… I’m sorry, you weren’t very clear… Less paperwork? Surly not… Not everyone getting covered. That’s *why* the costs would be lower. You can’t have it both ways, though.

You can’t have lower costs by not covering people *and* have universal coverage. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

There’s a reason why no country in the world has *less* government involvement in healthcare *and* better coverage than the US.

# 45 LibertyLover said, on September 13th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

#44, Social Darwinism at it’s finest.

. . . or Government Sponsored Genocide.

Also, it’s fine to disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions,

I guess you’ve never heard about FDR’s court packing threat if they didn’t start ruling in his favor, huh?

The Supreme Court has been nothing but a rubber stamp ever since.

But I guess you think two wrongs make a right?

You can’t have lower costs by not covering people *and* have universal coverage. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

You could have universal coverage if the costs weren’t prohibitive.

Get government out of the “dictating” business, put them back in to the “promoting” business, and prices will come down, charity hospitals will open back up, and you’ll find that more people are getting better quality care than ever.

There’s a reason why no country in the world has *less* government involvement in healthcare *and* better coverage than the US.

I don’t really care what other countries are doing. If they are that appealing to you, a ticket is less than you think.

# 46 bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist said, on September 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

#45–LIEBERTY LOSER===”I don’t really care what other countries are doing.” /// Yep, don’t let facts ruin a good dogma.

yap, yap, yap—where’s my bone?

# 47 simongiln said, on September 13th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

#45

“If they are that appealing to you, a ticket is less than you think.”

Says the person who just argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have the rights clearly given to it by the constitution.

One of us has a bigger problem with this country then the other, and it ain’t me.

# 48 LibertyLover said, on September 13th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

#47, I would like to go back to what the Constitution was supposed to be written for — protecting the Rights of the people. What has happened is those Rights have slowly been chipped away.

The Supreme Court was originally supposed to handle cases between states and to act as the final say in federal cases. However, in the 1890s, that all changed when people started filing suits against the Federal Government on Constitutional grounds (which is ok, I’m not denying that purpose). The problem is that with the Federal Government involved in so many States issues, they have become more than they were intended to be. FDR just made it worse.

There is a difference between completely throwing it in the trash and trying to get it restored.

# 49 bobbo, They call me "Mr Constitution" said, on September 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

#48–LIEBERTY LOSER==you crack me up: “There is a difference between completely throwing it in the trash and trying to get it restored.” //// Hah, hah.

Yea–every case ruled on by the Sup Ct starts with: “What we are doing today is throwing the Constitition in the trash and ruling to make LIEBERTARIANS but chattel slaves.”

What a dope.

# 50 simongiln said, on September 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

#48

Once more with feeling:
The constitution is very clear about who has the valid legal authority to interpret the constitution: The Supreme Court (and lower courts as necessary; SCOTUS being the highest of them, and thus the one that defines the discussion for everyone else). This interpretation is backed by precedent. You’re personal opinion on the matter is about as legally binding as a Harry Potter novel.

Interpreting the constitution without consideration to Supreme Court decisions is like speaking to a deaf person without knowing sign language and pointedly ignoring the guy behind her yelling at you about what she’s trying to say (Constitution is to Joey Lucas as Supreme Court is to Kenny Thurman; for a West Wing reference).

# 51 m.c. in l.v. said, on September 13th, 2009 at 11:12 pm

Is Liberty Lover in the insurance business? Sure sounds like it.

Why is he still mad at FDR? The dude’s been dead for 64 years. Give it a rest already.

# 52 American Auto Insurance said, on September 14th, 2009 at 12:59 am

I really enjoyed this post. I will definitely check back later for more informative posts from you. Thanks!

# 53 LibertyLover said, on September 14th, 2009 at 4:36 am

#50, Sigh.

I know what the purpose of the SCOTUS is for. But in the 1890s it job turned more and more from settling disputes between States and the like to handling lawsuits brought against the US. I find no problem with that.

I bring up FDR as an example of how the Constitution has been subverted. They were doing their job up until then.

When FDR’s socialist programs were being struck down one after the other after he took office, he threatened to dilute the sitting judges’ power by appointing an equal number of judges who would vote in his favor — and not replace the sitting ones when they retired.

Lo and behold (!) all his programs since were approved. And every president since has had the near-perfect approval for anything they support.

BTW . . . I don’t watch West Wing but thanks for describing your educational background.

# 54 LibertyLover said, on September 14th, 2009 at 4:40 am

#51, Is Liberty Lover in the insurance business? Sure sounds like it.

Nope. I own an engineering firm with about a dozen engineers. We design waste water treatment plants, electrical power distribution centers, and other processes — all the things people use day to day and wonder why it costs so much to use.

Keep increasing our overhead. Eventually, you won’t be able to afford the basics.

# 55 simongiln said, on September 14th, 2009 at 5:44 am

#53

So, instead of accepting the SCOTUS rulings as valid (as clearly stated by the Constitution), you simply throw them out because they don’t agree with you. Sorry, reality doesn’t work that way. What the Supreme Court *says* the Constitution means *is* what the Constitution means, unless overruled by a more recent SCOTUS ruling.

Political background is good to know as a historical matter, but it’s irrelevant to the legality of the rulings. You’re peaching about FDR really only serves to prove that you’re opinions have been out dated for well over a hundred years.

The fact is that no country in this would has a health system run the way you wish ours was run *and* produces better results. Completely apart from the fact that you have no legal foot to stand on, there are no countries in this world that you can use as examples to support your ideology.

You’re an ideologue, with no feet to stand on. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can move on from your denial to anger (then bargaining, etc…).

//#54 insert waste treatment joke here

# 56 LibertyLover said, on September 14th, 2009 at 6:07 am

#55, So, instead of accepting the SCOTUS rulings as valid (as clearly stated by the Constitution), you simply throw them out because they don’t agree with you.

Incorrect.

I feel that just because it happened once, doesn’t mean it should happen again. We need to correct those mistakes, not build on them.

Big difference.

If a murderer goes free on a technicality, does that mean all future murders this guy commits are ok?

//#54 insert waste treatment joke here

I probably know more than you do

# 57 bobbo, knowing libertarianism is not Dogma said, on September 14th, 2009 at 7:00 am

#56–LIEBERTY LOSER==”I feel that just because it happened once, doesn’t mean it should happen again. We need to correct those mistakes, not build on them.” /// So–YOU correct FDR’s plan to pack the court which never happened by defeating health care?

Well, your feelings run quite high.

Any true libertarian would be “for” universal healthcare and the argument should focus on how to pay for it.

Anything else is self centered BS mascarading as any loose idea put out there.

Having owned my own business, I respect your continuing achievement on that front. You ought to share a few good engineering/shit jokes. I can’t think of any, other than every position you have taken on this blog. An those have just been shit positions without the social engineering considered.

# 58 Rick Cain said, on September 15th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Ah but the Europeans get health insurance AND liquor, designer jeans, and protein supplements.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!