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? :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

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.

But it's not being "socialized" in any event, at least, not any more than 
it already is. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:03:19 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:

>  -Shay


Hi Shay,
Andrel and I were wondering if you were still working offshore. Are you?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

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? :)
> 
> ...Chambers

I didn't catch the news this week. Did the legislation pass?

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> 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? :)
>>
>> ...Chambers
> 
> I didn't catch the news this week. Did the legislation pass?
> 
> -Mike

It hasn't been brought to vote yet, and this was only intended as a joke ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:32:05 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> It hasn't been brought to vote yet, and this was only intended as a joke
> ;)

For the record, I did laugh. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> 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.

That's how it works in the UK at least.  A lot of employers do have private 
health care schemes for employees, and it's just another factor along with 
the other benefits you consider when deciding whether to take a job.

Post a reply to this message

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?!!

Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.

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?

Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" 
alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:03:19 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
> 
>>  -Shay
> 
> 
> Hi Shay,
> Andrel and I were wondering if you were still working offshore. Are you?
> 

Not working offshore, but still roughnecking. This will be my last job. 
I do not accept promotions (a non-issue at the moment due to the state 
of the industry :)) and have no desire to ever again lease my intellect 
to an employer or customer.

My wife and I do have a tiny hobby/business, the facetious goal of which 
is to make back the $140 a month pay-cut I recently received. More than 
that would involve disengaging from intense, but non-$$ personal 
endeavors -- I'll report on one of these in November.

Beyond that, I do have the intention of one day owning a coffee shop or 
small restaurant, though I won't do this until I can pay cash for the 
business. I save aggressively, so this isn't as outlandish as it sounds.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.

It may be his stated goal, but it's not in any legislation currently 
under consideration.  Have you actually looked at the proposals?

> 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?

As for the unemployed dependents, private insurance rates should 
(theoretically) go down, since all those deadbeats won't be clogging up 
accounts receivable anymore :)

> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" 
> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.

Nothing is free (hence the humor of my original post).  If you don't pay 
for it in premiums, you pay for it in taxes.

Besides, the Post Office hasn't killed off UPS or FedEx.  Why would a 
government healthcare plan do any better at killing off the private 
insurers?

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
> 
> It may be his stated goal, but it's not in any legislation currently 
> under consideration.  Have you actually looked at the proposals?
> 
>> 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?
> 
> As for the unemployed dependents, private insurance rates should 
> (theoretically) go down, since all those deadbeats won't be clogging up 
> accounts receivable anymore :)

Children who, for the most part, do not have chronic illnesses or 
workplace injuries but who pay into the system (through their parents) 
are deadbeats? That's one of the good things about private insurance vs 
taxes: people with children pay *more* into the system.

> 
>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" 
>> alternative. This is why we have the tenth amendment.
> 
> Nothing is free (hence the humor of my original post).  If you don't pay 
> for it in premiums, you pay for it in taxes.
> 
> Besides, the Post Office hasn't killed off UPS or FedEx.  Why would a 
> government healthcare plan do any better at killing off the private 
> insurers?

Because the government hasn't /yet/ decided that I need to pay to ship 
your 50 lb box of jelly jars to Aunt Edna. Make shipping a "right" and 
see how long FedEx and UPS make it.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

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

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:15:05 -0500, Shay wrote:

>>>> 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.

Sure, but my point is to demonstrate that employees still have control.  
That's not to say it doesn't have to be exercised more carefully right 
now.

> 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?

We're not talking about just indigents.  But the homeless living in our 
cities spread disease and they can't get treated.  Helping the 46 million 
people without health care (many of whom are part-time workers who are 
ineligible for benefits) is a good idea.

There was an episode of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days that showed what living 
on minimum wage is like.  That comes without health care.  These are hard-
working people, but they have to decide between eating and going to the 
hospital for necessary care.

You think it's reasonable to just let them die?

> 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.

If you pay insurance premiums, you pay for other people's health care 
NOW.  I really wish the right would stop saying that what we have is "the 
best in the world" and BS like that.

>>> 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?

First, I've read it.  Second, I understand it.

> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3

You cited the 10th amendment, not this article before.  Please make up 
your mind.

Cherry-picking parts of the constitution is like cherry-picking parts of 
the bible.  If you are referring to:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, 
and with the Indian tribes; " - that's one of many items listed as a 
responsibility of the legislative branch.  Again, this has nothing to do 
with the topic at hand unless you mean to read this clause as being the 
only thing Article 1, Section 8 is about.

> In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority, yes,
> they absolutely should be stopped.

And I suppose you think the post office ought to be stopped, too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" 
> alternative. 

Why is that bad in this specific case?  Would you still think it's bad if an 
amendment was passed specifically allowing health care to be government run?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the free 
> market, it's the tyranny of the majority

So you're OK with the public option being optional? So you're not forced?

What if it's like the USPS, a private regulated non-profit corp?  I had a 
car insurance company that ran like that, and I got a check back every year 
for the premiums they'd collected and hadn't needed to pay out.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I had a
> car insurance company that ran like that, and I got a check back every
> year for the premiums they'd collected and hadn't needed to pay out.

That sounds awesome.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I had a
>> car insurance company that ran like that, and I got a check back every
>> year for the premiums they'd collected and hadn't needed to pay out.
> 
> That sounds awesome.
> 

http://www.njm.com/

Set up by a bunch of independent manufacturing companies. Was nice. You 
never got crap over a claim, either.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> We're not talking about just indigents.  But the homeless living in our 
> cities spread disease and they can't get treated.  Helping the 46 million 
> people without health care (many of whom are part-time workers who are 
> ineligible for benefits) is a good idea.
> 
> There was an episode of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days that showed what living 
> on minimum wage is like.  That comes without health care.  These are hard-
> working people, but they have to decide between eating and going to the 
> hospital for necessary care.
> 
> You think it's reasonable to just let them die?

If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then yes.

Some people are going to be allowed to die. This decision can be made by 
some "medical moralist" employed by the government or by a patient's 
having participated or not (by his patronage) in the 
construction/support of the healthcare system.

You may feel that the latter is evil. I feel that the former is evil. 
More evil is the degree of control we will insist on having over other's 
unhealthful behaviors once these others are all in our pockets.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> If you pay insurance premiums, you pay for other people's health care 
> NOW.  I really wish the right would stop saying that what we have is "the 
> best in the world" and BS like that.

Insurance premiums are VOLUNTARY.

>> Do you statists hate the Constitution so much that you can't bear to
>> read it?
> 
> First, I've read it.  Second, I understand it.
> 
>> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3
> 
> You cited the 10th amendment, not this article before.  Please make up 
> your mind.

Making two different points.

> 
> Cherry-picking parts of the constitution is like cherry-picking parts of 
> the bible.  If you are referring to:
> 
> "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, 
> and with the Indian tribes; " - that's one of many items listed as a 
> responsibility of the legislative branch.  Again, this has nothing to do 
> with the topic at hand unless you mean to read this clause as being the 
> only thing Article 1, Section 8 is about.

Article 1, Section 8 - powers delegated to the US Government
10th Amendment - US Government has only those powers delegated to it by 
the Constitution.

You call THAT "cherry picking"?

> 
>> In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority, yes,
>> they absolutely should be stopped.
> 
> And I suppose you think the post office ought to be stopped, too.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7:
To establish post offices and post roads;

There I go, cherry picking again.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> My being forced to pay for your healthcare isn't competition or the 
>> free market, it's the tyranny of the majority
> 
> So you're OK with the public option being optional? So you're not forced?
> 

Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my 
wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.

A person shouldn't even want to be in my wallet. What happens when ten 
smokers decide that five bicyclists are too much of a strain on "their" 
healthcare system?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my 
> wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.

Would you be against the government setting up an insurance plan that's 
zero-sum for anyone who wants to participate but which isn't funded by taxes 
of those who don't get benefits?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then yes.

But we're not.

> Some people are going to be allowed to die.

Sure. I'd rather have it decided by a doctor than a stockholder.

> or by a patient's 
> having participated or not (by his patronage) in the 
> construction/support of the healthcare system.

If people reliably got the care they paid insurance to cover, that would 
work well.

> You may feel that the latter is evil. I feel that the former is evil. 
> More evil is the degree of control we will insist on having over other's 
> unhealthful behaviors once these others are all in our pockets.

There is that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" alternative. 
> 
> Why is that bad in this specific case?  Would you still think it's bad 
> if an amendment was passed specifically allowing health care to be 
> government run?
> 

What if your company would sell me a computer for $300 and the 
government came along and offered to sell me the same computer for $400, 
but in the government's case, Jim would be paying for my computer.

Which do you think I'd choose?

Amendment or no, it's wrong.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:06:55 -0500, Shay wrote:

>> You think it's reasonable to just let them die?
> 
> If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then
> yes.

Seems like building a bigger lifeboat might be a better option.

>> If you pay insurance premiums, you pay for other people's health care
>> NOW.  I really wish the right would stop saying that what we have is
>> "the best in the world" and BS like that.
> 
> Insurance premiums are VOLUNTARY.

Guess what - participation in a single payer system would also be 
voluntary.  You don't have to get your service from it if you don't want 
to.

>>> Do you statists hate the Constitution so much that you can't bear to
>>> read it?
>> 
>> First, I've read it.  Second, I understand it.
>> 
>>> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3
>> 
>> You cited the 10th amendment, not this article before.  Please make up
>> your mind.
> 
> Making two different points.

And those points are.....?

> Article 1, Section 8 - powers delegated to the US Government 10th
> Amendment - US Government has only those powers delegated to it by the
> Constitution.
> 
> You call THAT "cherry picking"?

The way it was presented, yes.  If you're going to try to make a point, 
at least make it in a way that's comprehensible. ;-)

>>> In instances where the TSA, FCC, etc. extend beyond this authority,
>>> yes, they absolutely should be stopped.
>> 
>> And I suppose you think the post office ought to be stopped, too.
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7:
> To establish post offices and post roads;
> 
> There I go, cherry picking again.

So, if we get a constitutional amendment, then you'd be OK with bringing 
the US health care system up to par with the rest of the world?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:22:38 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Amendment or no, it's wrong.

Hmm, so much for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Scratch 
off "life", scratch of "liberty" (thanks to the PATRIOT act).  How shall 
we squash the pursuit of happiness?

How about "all men are created equal"?  Except for something as important 
as health care.  If they can't pay for it, screw 'em.  Nice compassion 
there.

The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined in 
the Declaration of Independence as being among the "inalienable rights".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Which do you think I'd choose?

I don't think that's a valid analogy, so I won't address it.

The nature of insurance is that you don't pay for your own outlays, unless 
they happen to be below the premiums. The only *cost* to insurance is the 
overhead.

> Amendment or no, it's wrong.

Then why bring up the point of the amendments?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/27/09 08:47, Shay wrote:
> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.

	His stated goal is also not to have single payer.


-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't 
put it down.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:22:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
> 
>> Amendment or no, it's wrong.
> 
> Hmm, so much for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Scratch 
> off "life", scratch of "liberty" (thanks to the PATRIOT act).  How shall 
> we squash the pursuit of happiness?
> 
> How about "all men are created equal"?  Except for something as important 
> as health care.  If they can't pay for it, screw 'em.  Nice compassion 
> there.

You mean all Americans, don't you? Or would you actually like to extend 
health care benefits outside our borders? If they were born 6" on the 
wrong side of this imaginary line, screm 'em. Nice compassion there.

The Constitution says that we are born with the right to pursue 
happiness, not the that government must pave the road to it.

> 
> The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined in 
> the Declaration of Independence as being among the "inalienable rights".

So, these rights are inalienable to the old and demented? Oh wait, I 
forgot, the old and demented will not be excluded because we're 
"building a bigger boat."

The entity wanting to take over health care is 12 Trillion in debt, but 
we'll just print more money, right?

Even if I gave you that publicizing health care would make it better, we 
still would only have achieved this by stealing from the next 
generation. What about the next generation's right to "life."

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Which do you think I'd choose?
> 
> I don't think that's a valid analogy, so I won't address it.
> 
> The nature of insurance is that you don't pay for your own outlays, 
> unless they happen to be below the premiums. The only *cost* to 
> insurance is the overhead.
> 
>> Amendment or no, it's wrong.
> 
> Then why bring up the point of the amendments?
> 

I'm not preaching that Capitalism is a panacea or that our Constitution 
is perfect, but my principal fear is what will (continue to) happen as 
we lose our constitutional protection from the majority.

However, socialism gained by any other, even legal, means is just as 
dangerous.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined in 
> the Declaration of Independence as being among the "inalienable rights".

The DoI is not a legal document, as such.  It's effectively just pretty 
words.  See also 'enemy combatant' vs. 'prisoner of war', any legal 
tiptoeing to shoehorn enhanced interrogation techniques into being just 
this side of *technically* legal, waiving of said 'inalienable rights' 
by committing this or that crime, moving prisoners out of territory so 
certain laws don't apply, et cetera.

If it can be waived, ever, or at the very least if it needs to be 
spelled out because any people don't have it, it's not an inalienable 
right.  IMO

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 08:47, Shay wrote:
>> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
> 
>     His stated goal is also not to have single payer.
> 
> 

How about, "straight from the horse's mouth"?

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

Post a reply to this message

On 08/27/09 17:06, Shay wrote:
>> You think it's reasonable to just let them die?
>
> If we're in a lifeboat made for six that is already carrying ten, then yes.
>
> Some people are going to be allowed to die. This decision can be made by
> some "medical moralist" employed by the government or by a patient's
> having participated or not (by his patronage) in the
> construction/support of the healthcare system.

	False dichotomy. The two are not exclusive. And I'd rather put that 
choice in the hands of the government with oversight than at the hands 
of an employee at an insurance company with no transparency.

>> If you pay insurance premiums, you pay for other people's health care
>> NOW. I really wish the right would stop saying that what we have is
>> "the best in the world" and BS like that.
>
> Insurance premiums are VOLUNTARY.

	As is, you know, going to a store and buying food.


-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't 
put it down.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/27/09 13:15, Shay wrote:
> And I know a dozen who have been laid off. The numbers are the numbers,
> our individual anecdotes are nearly worthless.
	
	In which case, we should be discussing the numbers related to health 
care in the US vs other industrialized countries.

> 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?

	Actually, I suspect almost all industrialized countries that provide 
UHC give health care to anyone legally in the country. I know that at 
least in Canada, you need not be a permanent resident.

	In the UK, I believe you have to pay if you're a short term resident 
(tourist, etc). But I'm sure if you're working there, you're covered.

> 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

	The same argument can be applied to libraries, police and fire 
departments. How do you feel about those?

-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't 
put it down.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/27/09 17:17, Shay wrote:
>> So you're OK with the public option being optional? So you're not forced?
>>
>
> Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my
> wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.

	Likely not *your* wallet, because you likely don't earn enough. But 
that's a minor point.

	Are you against all federally funded science research, and federally 
funded transportation (e.g. interstates)?

	And Medicare and Medicaid?


-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't 
put it down.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/27/09 13:28, Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" alternative.
>
> Why is that bad in this specific case? Would you still think it's bad if

	He was taking about the insurance industry - not the health of the 
people...
	

-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't 
put it down.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     In the UK, I believe you have to pay if you're a short term resident 
> (tourist, etc). But I'm sure if you're working there, you're covered.

In europe, on public transit, I always saw ads for "holiday insurance", 
which I assumed meant your healthcare if you were traveling outside the country.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 13:15, Shay wrote:
>> And I know a dozen who have been laid off. The numbers are the numbers,
>> our individual anecdotes are nearly worthless.
>     
>     In which case, we should be discussing the numbers related to health 
> care in the US vs other industrialized countries.

So discuss them. What have you got?

> 
>> 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
> 
>     The same argument can be applied to libraries, police and fire 
> departments. How do you feel about those?
> 

Not federal!!!!!! What federal money that does go into the library 
system should not.

That's it! I'm willing to discuss, but pointing out *obvious* 
distinctions between the Post Office, Fire Department, etc. and Public 
Medicine to the ignorant is over. This could go on forever. Learn how 
the country is designed to work before making political decisions, please.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 17:17, Shay wrote:
>>> So you're OK with the public option being optional? So you're not 
>>> forced?
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely not. The public option is an option for you to reach into my
>> wallet. You either believe that's wrong or you don't.
> 
>     Likely not *your* wallet, because you likely don't earn enough. But 
> that's a minor point.

Oh my god! Are you f**king kidding me?!

The greedy rich are paying for all of this and just need to open their 
purse strings a *bit* more. Right?

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/27/09 13:28, Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" 
>>> alternative.
>>
>> Why is that bad in this specific case? Would you still think it's bad if
> 
>     He was taking about the insurance industry - not the health of the 
> people...

I know that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 08/27/09 13:28, Darren New wrote:
>>> Shay wrote:
>>>> Our government can poison any industry by providing a "free" 
>>>> alternative.
>>>
>>> Why is that bad in this specific case? Would you still think it's bad if
>>
>>     He was taking about the insurance industry - not the health of the 
>> people...
> 
> I know that.
> 

Completely separate issues, of course. Because it doesn't cost money to 
improve "the health of people." Neeum should go into the political 
bumper-sticker business.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:54:59 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined
>> in the Declaration of Independence as being among the "inalienable
>> rights".
> 
> The DoI is not a legal document, as such.  It's effectively just pretty
> words.  See also 'enemy combatant' vs. 'prisoner of war', any legal
> tiptoeing to shoehorn enhanced interrogation techniques into being just
> this side of *technically* legal, waiving of said 'inalienable rights'
> by committing this or that crime, moving prisoners out of territory so
> certain laws don't apply, et cetera.
> 
> If it can be waived, ever, or at the very least if it needs to be
> spelled out because any people don't have it, it's not an inalienable
> right.  IMO

So in other words, the DoI states what we set out to do, and then we 
failed short?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:49:32 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:22:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>> 
>>> Amendment or no, it's wrong.
>> 
>> Hmm, so much for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". 
>> Scratch off "life", scratch of "liberty" (thanks to the PATRIOT act). 
>> How shall we squash the pursuit of happiness?
>> 
>> How about "all men are created equal"?  Except for something as
>> important as health care.  If they can't pay for it, screw 'em.  Nice
>> compassion there.
> 
> You mean all Americans, don't you? 

The document in question says "all men".

> Or would you actually like to extend
> health care benefits outside our borders? If they were born 6" on the
> wrong side of this imaginary line, screm 'em. Nice compassion there.

Don't conflate what I'm saying here.

> The Constitution says that we are born with the right to pursue
> happiness, not the that government must pave the road to it.

Yes.  But health != happiness.

>> The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined
>> in the Declaration of Independence as being among the "inalienable
>> rights".
> 
> So, these rights are inalienable to the old and demented? Oh wait, I
> forgot, the old and demented will not be excluded because we're
> "building a bigger boat."

Right.  That old and perhaps demented person might be your local WallMart 
greeter.  He gets sick, he passes it on to the checker who checks out 
your monster size box of Coco Puffs.  Like it or not, we're all in this 
together here.

> The entity wanting to take over health care is 12 Trillion in debt, but
> we'll just print more money, right?

And how did we get into that debt?  Partly by skyrocketing health care 
costs.  The bloody insurance companies aren't going to fix that.  The 
whole friggin' system is set up to keep us SICK so the shareholders in 
hospitals and insurance companies can MAKE MORE MONEY.  That's messed up.

> Even if I gave you that publicizing health care would make it better, we
> still would only have achieved this by stealing from the next
> generation. What about the next generation's right to "life."

If costs come down, that's a good thing, right?

When you open your coffee shop and expand to the point you need 
employees, are you going to give them health care?  If so, good for you.  
If not, hope they don't get sick and pass it on to you.  You gonna check 
medical insurance cards at the door and ask for a medical history to 
ensure nobody who's ill doesn't come in the door and pass on some 
communicable disease to you or your staff?

Are you the "bubble boy"?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:22:23 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 08/27/09 13:15, Shay wrote:
>>> And I know a dozen who have been laid off. The numbers are the
>>> numbers, our individual anecdotes are nearly worthless.
>>     
>>     In which case, we should be discussing the numbers related to
>>     health
>> care in the US vs other industrialized countries.
> 
> So discuss them. What have you got?
> 
> 
>>> 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
>> 
>>     The same argument can be applied to libraries, police and fire
>> departments. How do you feel about those?
>> 
>> 
> Not federal!!!!!! What federal money that does go into the library
> system should not.
> 
> That's it! I'm willing to discuss, but pointing out *obvious*
> distinctions between the Post Office, Fire Department, etc. and Public
> Medicine to the ignorant is over. This could go on forever. Learn how
> the country is designed to work before making political decisions,
> please.

Doctors who receive their licenses in the US are licensed to practice in 
the US.  It's interstate commerce, something the federal government is 
mandated by the constitution to regulate.  Doctors are routinely flown in 
across state lines to perform operations.

Medical equipment isn't manufactured in every state; that MRI machine may 
have been manufactured anywhere in the US (or the world, for that matter).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:43:41 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> His stated goal is also not to have single payer.

I think you missed an "only" in there.  IOW, a single-payer system isn't 
the only option.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:49:32 -0500, Shay wrote:

>> The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are defined
>> in the Declaration of Independence as being among the "inalienable
>> rights".
> 
> So, these rights are inalienable to the old and demented?

The document's pretty clear it means for all people and not just a 
"special super-elite class".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/27/09 19:22, Shay wrote:
>> The same argument can be applied to libraries, police and fire
>> departments. How do you feel about those?
>
> Not federal!!!!!! What federal money that does go into the library
> system should not.

	You seem to be complaining not based on principle, but on quibbles. You 
act as if you're invoking an unceasing willingness to conform to the 
Constitution, regardless of whether that's a good thing, or not. The 
Constitution is merely a document, not a source for morality or ethics.

	What different does it make if it's state vs federal? One way or other, 
it's taking money out of your pocket, which was your complaint. I wasn't 
aware that you think it's OK to forcefully take money from your pocket 
if the _state_ is doing it, rather than the federal government.
	
> That's it! I'm willing to discuss, but pointing out *obvious*
> distinctions between the Post Office, Fire Department, etc. and Public
> Medicine to the ignorant is over. This could go on forever. Learn how

	OK, I'll play along. How about states mandating UHC?


-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't 
put it down.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/27/09 18:56, Shay wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 08/27/09 08:47, Shay wrote:
>>> Our presidents *stated* goal is a single-payer government system.
>>
>> His stated goal is also not to have single payer.
>>
>>
>
> How about, "straight from the horse's mouth"?
>
> http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

	Yes. So? I never denied that his stated goal was to have single payer.

-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't 
put it down.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/27/09 19:26, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:43:41 -0500, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> His stated goal is also not to have single payer.
>
> I think you missed an "only" in there.  IOW, a single-payer system isn't
> the only option.

	No, I meant what I said. He stated that he is not pursuing single payer:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Town-Hall-on-Health-Insurance-Reform-in-Portsmouth-New-Hampshire/

"All right? So I'm not promoting a single-payer plan."

	(Never mind his lies in what he said throughout...)

-- 
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't 
put it down.

Post a reply to this message