The non-car owner analogy is actually a perfect description of my situation, as I have no physical body (Im comprised of electro magnetic energy) yet Obamacare forces me to waste my money on your flesh based health care system.
It's really their fault for being made of meat in the first place. I mean, who makes someone out of meat!?
Thinking meat, at that.
Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!
Health Care and Health Insurance are not the same thing.
Why is the government telling me I have to purchase a product from a for-profit company or face a fine?
Because the Republicans wouldn't allow you to instead pay a tax to fund a general health care pool. Never mind that this individual mandate was originally a Republican idea.
The very idea of "Health Insurance" is ludicrous. Basic health care is, in my estimation, a right, the provision of which is one of the basic functions of a modern indulstrialized state's government duties.
We do consider it a right. That's why we have a law that requires hospitals to provide it. It is therefore ridiculous to expect it to be privately provided. I agree that mandating the purchase of a private good like this is ridiculous. A much better option would be to get rid of private insurance altogether. But NOOOO, we can't obliterate an entire industry like that, so instead we stealthily try to force them out of the market.
If the country would just have the balls to kick the private health insurance industry out of basic healthcare and into specialty markets, this whole thing would be much more efficient.
Health Care and Health Insurance are not the same thing.
Why is the government telling me I have to purchase a product from a for-profit company or face a fine?
Because our govt works for the benefit of its citizens, which are the for profit companies. American consumers are a natural resource, so it only makes sense to guarantee your citizens access to your natural resources.
If the country would just have the balls to kick the private health insurance industry out of basic healthcare and into specialty markets, this whole thing would be much more efficient.
Yes. Private health care as an industry will make plenty of money on elective procedures, cosmetic surgery, experimental medicine, and the like. I don't want private healthcare to be the primary means of getting more basic things like, say, treatment for a broken leg or an infection.
While trust in science remained stable among people who self-identified as moderates and liberals in the United States between 1974 and 2010, trust in science fell among self-identified conservatives by more than 25 percent during the same period, according to a study by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. 'Over the last several decades, there's been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative,' said the study's lead author. 'For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities and what is perceived as the "liberal culture." So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes "us" conservatives is that we don't agree with "them."'
Note to all: stop writing "health care" when you mean to write "health insurance".
Right now, they're entirely conflated. We can't separate them any time soon. Health insurance IS health care for all intents and purposes in the US, and the Republicans fought any effort to change that.
Note to all: stop writing "health care" when you mean to write "health insurance".
Health insurance is the sole means through which the large majority in the US can actually get health care. At least, health care that they can afford.
So yeah, they're effectively the same thing right now. Stop disingenuously representing the situation.
Not true. One of those can exist without the other. Would automobiles not exist if financing did not exist? Would houses exist without a mortgage market? Would colleges exist without student loans?
If those "affordability" helpers did not exist would prices be higher, lower or about the same?
Should we pass an affordable food law because everyone takes part in the food market?
We already have that. Taxes on food are limited, and we have government farming subsidies to make food affordable. We also have food stamp and WIC programs that provide food for those too poor to afford it.
Seriously, do you actually know anything about American economic systems, or are you just talking out your ass?
Prices are probably inflated a bit, yeah, but think of access to insurance and credit as a kind of privatized subsidizing. It plays a really key role in market accesibility, growth and development.
Should we pass an affordable food law because everyone takes part in the food market?
Yes. Farmers should be government employees, because right now they make nothing. Food is as much a part of our infrastructure as roads.
EDIT: And as Nuri points out, we already have affordable food initiatives. I think they should be expanded. There's no excuse for a person to go hungry in this country. None.
Humans are our most important piece of the national infrastructure. Without people, nothing goes. That's it. We need to maintain people, train them, feed them, and manage their growth and construction responsibly.
Would colleges exist without student loans?Would colleges exist without student loans?
Probably not. Loans have existed for as long as higher educational institutions have existed.
Or do you think people never used to borrow money to pay for things?
Not true. One of those can exist without the other. Would automobiles not exist if financing did not exist? Would houses exist without a mortgage market? Would colleges exist without student loans?
If those "affordability" helpers did not exist would prices be higher, lower or about the same?
Should we pass an affordable food law because everyone takes part in the food market?
Don't we already control food prices with things like quality/quantity regulation and subsidies? Also food stamps?
um, guys... crop subsidies and insurance payments are WAY higher than meat subsidies and insurance. Crop insurance pays like 100x more than grazing land insurance.
Theres a lot of subsidy money, but its poorly distributed; as in most goes towards the meat industry.
Well, it goes to corn, which in part goes to meat.
You mean in part goes to humans: "According to the National Corn Growers Association, about eighty percent of all corn grown in the U.S. is consumed by domestic and overseas livestock, poultry, and fish production. The crop is fed as ground grain, silage, high-moisture, and high-oil corn. About 12% of the U.S. corn crop ends up in foods that are either consumed directly (e.g. corn chips) or indirectly (e.g. high fructose corn syrup). It also has a wide array of industrial uses including ethanol, a popular oxygenate in cleaner burning auto fuels." http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html
And that's also where most of the crop subsidies go.
Today, the conservative types on facebook have been circulating a picture of Obama carrying a copy of The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria.
It is ASTOUNDING how many people have blindly shared that link while insisting that it's a "manifesto written by a fellow Muslim about their world after the fall of America." Literally judging a book by its cover.
The lengths to which they've become a parody of themselves continues to amaze and surprise me. Though it really shouldn't anymore.
Today, the conservative types on facebook have been circulating a picture of Obama carrying a copy of The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria.
It is ASTOUNDING how many people have blindly shared that link while insisting that it's a "manifesto written by a fellow Muslim about their world after the fall of America." Literally judging a book by its cover.
The lengths to which they've become a parody of themselves continues to amaze and surprise me. Though it really shouldn't anymore.
Nah, they're just mad he read a book. They're not into that book learning crap.
Today, the conservative types on facebook have been circulating a picture of Obama carrying a copy of The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria.
It is ASTOUNDING how many people have blindly shared that link while insisting that it's a "manifesto written by a fellow Muslim about their world after the fall of America." Literally judging a book by its cover.
The lengths to which they've become a parody of themselves continues to amaze and surprise me. Though it really shouldn't anymore.
That is so old and stupid that there is a Snopes article about it. What is worse (and not discussed in the snopes article) is the retarded implication that reading a book or other publication automatically implies agreement with everything that is said in it. If I read the Bible or the Koran I don't automatically become a christian or a muslim. If I read Mein Kampf I don't automatically become a Nazi and if I read The Communist Manifesto I don't automatically become a communist.
Comments
A single-payer system wouldn't fly at all. So this is a compromise. Don't like? Support a single-payer system.
Change is not an all-or-nothing affair. Sometimes you have to take baby steps. Sometimes you have to take half a step.
If the country would just have the balls to kick the private health insurance industry out of basic healthcare and into specialty markets, this whole thing would be much more efficient.
So yeah, they're effectively the same thing right now. Stop disingenuously representing the situation.
If those "affordability" helpers did not exist would prices be higher, lower or about the same?
Should we pass an affordable food law because everyone takes part in the food market?
Seriously, do you actually know anything about American economic systems, or are you just talking out your ass?
EDIT: And as Nuri points out, we already have affordable food initiatives. I think they should be expanded. There's no excuse for a person to go hungry in this country. None.
Humans are our most important piece of the national infrastructure. Without people, nothing goes. That's it. We need to maintain people, train them, feed them, and manage their growth and construction responsibly. Probably not. Loans have existed for as long as higher educational institutions have existed.
Or do you think people never used to borrow money to pay for things?
"According to the National Corn Growers Association, about eighty percent of all corn grown in the U.S. is consumed by domestic and overseas livestock, poultry, and fish production. The crop is fed as ground grain, silage, high-moisture, and high-oil corn. About 12% of the U.S. corn crop ends up in foods that are either consumed directly (e.g. corn chips) or indirectly (e.g. high fructose corn syrup). It also has a wide array of industrial uses including ethanol, a popular oxygenate in cleaner burning auto fuels."
http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html
And that's also where most of the crop subsidies go.
It is ASTOUNDING how many people have blindly shared that link while insisting that it's a "manifesto written by a fellow Muslim about their world after the fall of America." Literally judging a book by its cover.
The lengths to which they've become a parody of themselves continues to amaze and surprise me. Though it really shouldn't anymore.