You wanted the government to control your healthcare......

[Ishmael]

and this is what you get you dimwitted morons.

Tax the pie.

Ishmael

 

[KUJACK]

and this is what you get you dimwitted morons.

Tax the pie.

Ishmael

The FDA wants to link global climate change to meat consumption. Cow farts cause holes in the ozone. Such bullshit, pun intended.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Aside from standard government bad how is a particularly bad thing? At a glance it looks no different from any other sin tax.

 

[RobDownSouth]

*yawn* Insofar as outrages go, this is pretty weaksauce.

 

[miles]

Liberals like to say conservatives want to control what goes on in their bedrooms, but they have no problem with government controlling almost every other aspect of their lives.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I must have missed the part where this controls any aspect of my life. I mean other than apparently limiting junkfood commercials which is cute but won't happen. And would ultimately be no more or less harmful than limiting cigarette ads or liquor ads during kids and teen programing.

 

[Setanta84]

The government does not control health care in the US. If it did, that would be singl-payer health care, i.e. what almost every other developed nation on earth has. (And those that don't regulate the fuck out of the private sector or hybrid models they use.)

The ACA's consumer protections are pretty toothless. The only regulations in the damn thing are there to make sure the providers don't let short-term profits blind them to catastrophe.

If the ACA is going to legitimately piss you off, it should be due to the fact that it basically forces you to buy a shitty product that is probably rigged to be too inconvenient or unaffordable to use from a private partner.

And everybody gets sick at some point. It's basically the equivalent of passing a law forcing you to either shop at Walmart exclusively every year or pay a fine. It's not a liberal law due to that. It's a fascist one.

 

[Not Normal]

A report given to an agency or a sub-comity is not a law. It's a group of suggestions that can be used, altered or completely ignored.

Societies have laws, ordinances and services that come from the government. Many of which are quite useful. Some that we don't agree with must be dealt with to have all the other things that we find useful. I like having a police force and a Fire department. I think many of the "the government is controlling me" laws (which BTW are often lobbied for and bought by insurance companies...) are good of society on the whole.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The government does not control health care in the US. If it did, that would be singl-payer health care, i.e. what almost every other developed nation on earth has. (And those that don't regulate the fuck out of the private sector or hybrid models they use.)

The ACA's consumer protections are pretty toothless. The only regulations in the damn thing are there to make sure the providers don't let short-term profits blind them to catastrophe.

If the ACA is going to legitimately piss you off, it should be due to the fact that it basically forces you to buy a shitty product that is probably rigged to be too inconvenient or unaffordable to use from a private partner.

And everybody gets sick at some point. It's basically the equivalent of passing a law forcing you to either shop at Walmart exclusively every year or pay a fine. It's not a liberal law due to that. It's a fascist one.

Except it's closer to you must buy food if you can afford food.

 

[Setanta84]

Except it's closer to you must buy food if you can afford food.

Uh, no. When you buy food, you don't discover, when unpacking the groceries, that the items are only edible under certain conditions, at certain times of the day, and only in certain parts of the house. And the store doesn't send an errand boy to your house to point out fine print on the bill and ask for more money once you do sit down to eat.

For-profit health care in the US is not a good or service. It's a rent extraction device.

If the ACA actually was meant to change that, it would have done away with the industry's exemption for anti-trust laws and put in actual consumer protections that did something other than sound swell to people who have never needed serious medical attention or otherwise had actual knowledge or experience of how our system works.

 

[rosco rathbone]

and this is what you get you dimwitted morons.

Tax the pie.

Ishmael

This was coming one way or another. The passage of Obamacare is just another point in the general trend.

 

[Que]

This was coming one way or another. The passage of Obamacare is just another point in the general trend.

Agreed. Such things as sin taxes, use taxes and the like are all sold as being to society's benefit because the have potential to modify behavior in the direction that would benefit us individually and collectively.

The real motivation is always just another piggy bank to raid. Absolute confiscation by a thousand cuts. -It's only a 1/2 cent raise in the sales tax, and it is for the children! You can afford half a penny can't you, you cheap bastard? (..on every dollar on everything you buy)

The actual results are never even a fraction of the hoped for behavior modification. The poor don't forgo cigs in order to afford brocolli for the tykes, and we know this so we make snap a bit more generous in hopes that after mom buys her $96.50 carton including $50 in taxes, she will still be able to buy the big shrink-wrapped pack of ramen.

 

[Disgustipated]

Your taxes saved my girlfriend's life and fixed my shattered leg. Yeah, I'm okay with all this so fuck off Limpy.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Agreed. Such things as sin taxes, use taxes and the like are all sold as being to society's benefit because the have potential to modify behavior in the direction that would benefit us individually and collectively.

The real motivation is always just another piggy bank to raid. Absolute confiscation by a thousand cuts. -It's only a 1/2 cent raise in the sales tax, and it is for the children! You can afford half a penny can't you, you cheap bastard? (..on every dollar on everything you buy)

The actual results are never even a fraction of the hoped for behavior modification. The poor don't forgo cigs in order to afford brocolli for the tykes, and we know this so we make snap a bit more generous in hopes that after mom buys her $96.50 carton including $50 in taxes, she will still be able to buy the big shrink-wrapped pack of ramen.

But the government has more money to provide more services many of which are either things we refuse to live without (monstrous Military for example), would be kinda dumb to go without (Social Security and Medicade) and since everything else we pay for doesn't add up to any ONE of those three programs they are hardly worthy of discussion but letting our poor starve, or removing aide from various countries wouldn't do us a whole lot of good.

And there are studies that suggest the tax on ciggarettes has been a bigger part of driving down smoking than all the education in the world. I think it's a combination myself BUT that's not to say they don't work. And some programs like the lottery where never meant to adjust behavior in the first place.

 

[Que]

But the government has more money to provide more services many of which are either things we refuse to live without (monstrous Military for example), would be kinda dumb to go without (Social Security and Medicade) and since everything else we pay for doesn't add up to any ONE of those three programs they are hardly worthy of discussion but letting our poor starve, or removing aide from various countries wouldn't do us a whole lot of good.

And there are studies that suggest the tax on ciggarettes has been a bigger part of driving down smoking than all the education in the world. I think it's a combination myself BUT that's not to say they don't work. And some programs like the lottery where never meant to adjust behavior in the first place.

Lottery is a great example of government saying we know best and do as we say not as we do. Numbers rackets are illegal and have better odds of winning than the lottery.

He is how taxation should work. Figure out what your budget is. Divide by the number of citizens. Send each person their. Those that do not have the money then fill out the forms to show that they cannot pay. You add their unpaid bills to the top the next year and divide by the number of citizens.

If people realized that they were each having to pay $10,000 to receive $4,500 in services perhaps they would rethink the role of government.

 

[phrodeau]

You wanted your employer to control your healthcare.

Didn't you? Don't you? That's what you've always had, and you've been happy with it, right?

 

[Que]

You wanted your employer to control your healthcare.

Didn't you? Don't you? That's what you've always had, and you've been happy with it, right?

#Ascriptionagain.

Confiscatory tax schemes trying (and failing) to confiscate more income thaen the Laffer curve and actual economic realities will permit led to employers being involved in insurance which is not health-care, it is the means to pay for health-care. That separation from who pays vs who receives the care resulted in the inflation that we have sen in the cost of health-care and the burgeoning leeching existence of lawyers like Oreo.

Hey theres an idea. Simply make lawyering for a contingency percentage illegal and the cost of Doctor's malpractice insurance would plummet. Make lawyers pay costs and punitive damages for all cases brought forward and found to be spurious, they would plummet as well.

Take a no fault approach to damage recovery for victims. Charge Doctors a modest fee into state funds, and compensate anyone harmed by a medical practitioner out of that fund and we would have cheap labor for ditch digging with all the lawyers put out of business.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Lottery is a great example of government saying we know best and do as we say not as we do. Numbers rackets are illegal and have better odds of winning than the lottery.

He is how taxation should work. Figure out what your budget is. Divide by the number of citizens. Send each person their. Those that do not have the money then fill out the forms to show that they cannot pay. You add their unpaid bills to the top the next year and divide by the number of citizens.

If people realized that they were each having to pay $10,000 to receive $4,500 in services perhaps they would rethink the role of government.

The lottery is just proof that fools and their money are easy to part. It's not government saying they know best.

That would be a flat tax, would crush the poor, cripple the government and simply isn't a good plan for a country that has the kind of wealth gaps that all real nations have. I'd love to see how quickly the debt on that country grew.

Yeah, people would rethink the role of government, shrink it dramatically and then complain the next time they needed it and it wasn't there. MY house has never caught fire, never been broken into. A cop has never done me any good and have issued me a fair amount of parking ticket and traffic violations. That's not a good reason to eliminate either one of them or even seriously scale them back.

People are stupid which is why we elect (at least Democrats do, Republicans are bound and determined to hire amatuers whenever posssible ) professionals who do infact "know better" than we do to run the country. As well we should.

#Ascriptionagain.

Confiscatory tax schemes trying (and failing) to confiscate more income thaen the Laffer curve and actual economic realities will permit led to employers being involved in insurance which is not health-care, it is the means to pay for health-care. That separation from who pays vs who receives the care resulted in the inflation that we have sen in the cost of health-care and the burgeoning leeching existence of lawyers like Oreo.

Hey theres an idea. Simply make lawyering for a contingency percentage illegal and the cost of Doctor's malpractice insurance would plummet. Make lawyers pay costs and punitive damages for all cases brought forward and found to be spurious, they would plummet as well.

Take a no fault approach to damage recovery for victims. Charge Doctors a modest fee into state funds, and compensate anyone harmed by a medical practitioner out of that fund and we would have cheap labor for ditch digging with all the lawyers put out of business.

Nobody denies the LAffer Curve is real, what is debated is that there is any evidence whatsoever that we are anywhere near the upper end of said curve.

What percent of a doctor's bill is Malpractice Insurance. Surely you must know and it must be enormous.

I'll see if I can dig it up, I believe it was Harvard did a study a few years back that suggested doctors really aren't sued enough. The average person doesn't know shit for dick about medicine and nothing shy of stitching a foot on backwards is going to cause them to doubt their doctors did everything to the best of their ability. A no fault approach would further discourage all but the richest from doing it even if the doctor is 100% at fault. I can't risk 10k for a fancy lawyer and lose. Can you?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Aside from standard government bad how is a particularly bad thing? At a glance it looks no different from any other sin tax.

Who gets to define sin?

Since about 1960 we've been apoplectic over the idea that the Christian majority was defining sin and writing law to encode their values upon the rest of us, but now that it's a secular progressive hegemony, it's a good fucking thing?

That's called compartmentalization with the emphasis on mental.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But the government has more money to provide more services many of which are either things we refuse to live without (monstrous Military for example), would be kinda dumb to go without (Social Security and Medicade) and since everything else we pay for doesn't add up to any ONE of those three programs they are hardly worthy of discussion but letting our poor starve, or removing aide from various countries wouldn't do us a whole lot of good.

And there are studies that suggest the tax on ciggarettes has been a bigger part of driving down smoking than all the education in the world. I think it's a combination myself BUT that's not to say they don't work. And some programs like the lottery where never meant to adjust behavior in the first place.

Giving the government more money does not really result in more, or better service. There is a reason that seven of the wealthiest counties and the top three wealthiest counties surround Washington DC. It's strips $.40 of every dollar it takes in and puts it into overhead.

Again, you define sin and wage war on the poor and convince yourself that it is a good thing because you are acting in their best long-term interests, which is exactly what the Christians did in using the law to force people up the path to the pearly gates.

 

[Ishmael]

Health care is not about health care, it's about power. Taking power from the people and transferring it to the government. Power in the form of impoverishing taxation and fees, but power in the form of odious and overbearing regulations, all in our best interest of course.

Paul is right, there is a quiet revolution coming.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
Frédéric Bastiat

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/22/economics-of-health-insurance-and-care

All about the nobility of free health care for all.



The Lupica response.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
Frédéric Bastiat

Sure.

Government programs are identical to money laundering where a huge pile of cash is stolen then pared by so many people, hardly 10% of the starting amount is left after the money is Zestfully clean. Obama already wants to tax pie.

 

[Ishmael]

http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/22/economics-of-health-insurance-and-care

All about the nobility of free health care for all.



The Lupica response.

Lupica's opinion is no different than our ignorant friends here. They make these broad sweeping pronouncements without any regard for the cost or consequences.

Ishmael