Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:47:23 -0500, Shay wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:03:19 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:16:43 -0700, Chambers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that it's being socialized in the US, does that mean that I'll
>>>>>> get a raise since my company won't have to pay my premiums anymore?
>>>>>> :)
>>>>> No, because the private insurance option still exists - so you'd have
>>>>> to opt out of it in order to not have to pay the premiums.
>>>> Or your company could "opt out" of paying private healthcare premiums
>>>> as part of your compensation. But why would they do that?
>>> Sure, they could do that, but if enough employees wanted it and walked
>>> as a result, that might not be a good thing for the employer.
>>>
>>> Employees still have power.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> With 9-15% unemployment?!!
> 
> Sure, I know people who have quit their job and taken other jobs in the 
> last couple of weeks.

And I know a dozen who have been laid off. The numbers are the numbers, 
our individual anecdotes are nearly worthless.

> 
>> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
> 
> Our president's stated goal is health care reform, because the system is 
> hopelessly broken.  We're the only industrialized nation that doesn't 
> provide basic health care to all of its citizens.  Our costs are nearly 
> double anyone else, but our quality of care has us rated at #37 according 
> to the World Health Organization.

We have excessive lifestyles and a large population of indigents. *My* 
healthcare is excellent. Hell, as long as we're giving healthcare away 
to indigents, why stop at the border? What is other industrialized 
nations "provided" healthcare to non-citizens? Should we then?

> 
>> What are private insurance rates going to do when the self-insured (and
>> by "self-insured" I mean not only the self-employed but also the
>> unemployed dependents for whom the employed pay additional,
>> out-of-pocket premiums) leave the poisoned private healthcare system?
> 
> Well, the capitalists are going to say "compete", because competition is 
> supposedly the answer to everything.  So an option that actually is 
> affordable is going to cause the insurance companies to have to compete 
> or die.  The free market at work.

My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the free 
market, it's the tyranny of the majority, the specific threat our 
Constitution was authored to protect us from. This is why, beyond a few 
quips (and maybe even before that), this argument becomes very dull. A 
statist will never see the most powerful entity in the country as a 
potential threat and will therefore never understand the value of a 
Constitutional Republic over a pure Democracy.

> 
>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free"
>> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.
> 
> I don't see how this relates.  There's nothing in the 10th amendment that 
> says anything about the government not being able to provide services to 
> the people.  By that same logic, the TSA shouldn't be controlled by the 
> federal government, nor should the FCC, nor should we have a federal 
> highway system.

Do you statists hate the Constitution so much that you can't bear to 
read it?
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3
In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority, yes, 
they absolutely should be stopped.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message