The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Gil Gunderson]

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term.  Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death.  Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.

I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.

No, I think it's more like the GOP using a middle-class citizen for their own partisan advantage even though said citizen would benefit more from the Democrat's proposal than the non-existent GOP alternative.

You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.

I'm sorry, your analogy is inapposite to this bullshit.

[BH]

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term.  Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death.  Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.

I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.

No, I think it's more like the GOP using a middle-class citizen for their own partisan advantage even though said citizen would benefit more from the Democrat's proposal than the non-existent GOP alternative.

You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.

I'm sorry, your analogy is inapposite to this bullshit.

No one hurts Gil's stripper friends and gets away with it!

[Brownie]

I would then request that my employer pay me more to counteract the increased health care costs, and I don't think I'd be alone... Also, I would think this could possibly increase companies' expenses (transferring health care costs to wages expense, plus the added payroll taxes expense).

I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm just saying I don't see how it helps, but there are a lot of things in this world I don't see clearly

Of course you would. And I'm sure any legislation aimed at moving health care decisions back into the domain of the private citizen (and not the employer) would involve mandating the employer increase employees' pay equal to the cost of the insurance. And yes, a corresponding drop in payroll taxes would also have to occur.

Right now, Congress is trying to figure out how to pay for this. Expect a payroll tax increase (or a "penalty" which will be 8% of payroll on top of the current tax).

And that's a bad thing (loaded language aside)?

Also, this made me laugh.

The British have succeeded in putting a price tag on human life, as we are about to.

THE HORROR!

- Yes, it's a bad thing, especially if 89% of the people are on the public system, which is woefully inadequate next to the private system. Something like 11% of K-12 students are in private schools, the majority of them faith-based. About 20% of private schools are non-sectarian (and they, on average, cost more than twice what the religious schools do). So, of the 2-point-some-odd percent that go to elite private schools, or the 11 percent that go to private schools, we can assume there's nothing wrong with American public schools, right?

- C'mon, ChuckD. Life insurance is a totally different instrument than simply "placing a price tag on human life." It protects one's family and loved ones in the case of an untimely death. While it's not unheard of that someone will murder/commit suicide because one is worth more dead than alive, that's generally, you know, illegal. It's not illegal to deny claims because it's not cost-effective to treat the patient.

[Chuck to Chuck]

You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.

If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic.  Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.

Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker.  This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry.  No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.

Unless you see health care as a right.

[Quality Start Machine]

You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.

If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic.  Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.

Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker.  This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry.  No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.

Unless you see health care as a right.

I think it fits into the inalienable ones.

[Brownie]

You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.

If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic.  Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.

Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker.  This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry.  No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.

Unless you see health care as a right.

I think it fits into the inalienable ones.

No, the inalienable rights are the ones you have as a person and are granted to you simply because you are a person and not dependent on someone else doing the dirty work. I only have the right to health care in that I am free to work to be able to pay for it, or in that I am free to study medicine on my own and treat myself.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness simply means the right to be, to do and to own.

[Chuck to Chuck]

You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.

If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic.  Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.

Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker.  This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry.  No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.

Unless you see health care as a right.

I think it fits into the inalienable ones.

Life (with medical care included), Liberty (under the protection of Homeland Security) and Happiness (so long as it's OK under the Old and New Testament),

That Thomas Jefferson was a genius!

[Gil Gunderson]

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term.  Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death.  Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.

I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.

No, I think it's more like the GOP using a middle-class citizen for their own partisan advantage even though said citizen would benefit more from the Democrat's proposal than the non-existent GOP alternative.

You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.

I'm sorry, your analogy is inapposite to this bullshit.

No one hurts Gil's stripper friends and gets away with it!

I feel like Oleg today, with my liberal firebranding.  That, and I wore sandals to the office, so I do feel shorter.

[Gil Gunderson]

You know, just like how the GOP uses gay marriage and other wedge issues to divert the people's attention from the fact that they couldn't give a damn about their families, their jobs, or their welfare in general.

If someone on welfare protests against continued funding of welfare on the basis that welfare results in higher taxes and disincentives work, that's patriotic.  Perhaps wrong, but patriotic.

Obama just talked about raising cigarette taxes despite his status as a smoker.  This is not like a gay person saying no gays should marry.  No one is trying to deprive others of civil rights.

Unless you see health care as a right.

I think it fits into the inalienable ones.

No, the inalienable rights are the ones you have as a person and are granted to you simply because you are a person and not dependent on someone else doing the dirty work. I only have the right to health care in that I am free to work to be able to pay for it, or in that I am free to study medicine on my own and treat myself.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness simply means the right to be, to do and to own.

I would agree with that, but the idea of "rights" is ever evolving, especially in this country.  Overtime, we have expanded and redefined what we had hitherto thought of as a right.  Slavery and its abolition is perhaps the most notable, but far from the only expansion of the idea of "rights."  Perhaps we are at the point where the citizens of this country view healthcare as a right.  I'm sure seniors, veterans, and the poor do, as the government does cover them; but do the rest of us?  I think the emphasis should be on the precarious ground that most of us are on when it comes to health care, namely if you lose your job, you lose your healthcare.  When viewed through that prism, I think many people in this country would view health care as a right.

I would amend Brownie's comment

I only have the right to health care in that I am free to work to be able to pay for it, or in that I am free to study medicine on my own and treat myself.

to

I only have the right to health care in that employers, wanting to escape the World War II wage and price controls, offered health care to their unionized employees as an alternative to outright wage increases and that this development spread throughout the economy in general, or that I am free to study medicine on my own and treat myself.

[ChuckD]

- Yes, it's a bad thing, especially if 89% of the people are on the public system, which is woefully inadequate next to the private system.

Evidence?

Something like 11% of K-12 students are in private schools, the majority of them faith-based. About 20% of private schools are non-sectarian (and they, on average, cost more than twice what the religious schools do). So, of the 2-point-some-odd percent that go to elite private schools, or the 11 percent that go to private schools, we can assume there's nothing wrong with American public schools, right?

I don't really see your point here. It's simply economics. If a family is well-off and they consider the marginal value of a private education (secular or non-) to be >= the price of tuition, they're free to make that decision. The public education system, at least as I understand it, is intended as a baseline/safety net. If you want a better education, you're free to pursue that--as is the case with private health insurance in the UK.

- C'mon, ChuckD. Life insurance is a totally different instrument than simply "placing a price tag on human life." It protects one's family and loved ones in the case of an untimely death. While it's not unheard of that someone will murder/commit suicide because one is worth more dead than alive, that's generally, you know, illegal.

My issue was with the loaded language which seeks to demonize a practice (valuing the productive potential of a given life) that is extremely common. In any event, I don't really see what you're arguing here. Health insurance protects your family and loved ones in the case of an untimely illness. And life insurance claims can be denied due to trivial mistakes on an application.

It's not illegal to deny claims because it's not cost-effective to treat the patient.

Are you for this? Against it? I can't figure out what you're arguing. I will say that I do agree with one point: health care is not a right. But, from my (admittedly limited) understanding of the issue, the health insurance market has failed.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Perhaps we are at the point where the citizens of this country view healthcare as a right.  I'm sure seniors, veterans, and the poor do, as the government does cover them; but do the rest of us?

[/quote]
Veterans don't view it as a right.  They view it as "earned benefit for service provided."
The poor surely don't as they go to emergency rooms.
Seniors are another story.  One of the disasters that was the Bush Administration was the prescription drug benefit that was put in place to help them win Florida.  They've come to believe it's a right because our representatives have told them that it's a right because said reps need their votes!

[Chuck to Chuck]

It's not illegal to deny claims because it's not cost-effective to treat the patient.

But simple economics suggest more will be denied if the claims-payer is for-profit instead of not-for-profit.

[CBStew]

Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state.  Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?

[ChuckD]

Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state.  Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?

Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?

[CBStew]

Although there is no evidence that it occurred to the Founding Fathers, The Supreme Court had no difficulty in deciding that the right to an attorney as a criminal defendant was protected by due process, even at the expense of the state.  Is it such a stretch to say that the constitution protects one's health and life?

Wouldn't that fall under the 10th Amendment to the responsibility of state/local governments who hold the police powers (health, safety, and public welfare)?

The right to the assistance of counsel appears in the 6th amendment, but the Gideon case said that the 14th amendment made it applicable to the states at public expense.