Once a person's position is reduced to 'forces that are invisible and impossible to fully understand' they are done, there isn't anything further to discuss because they have no rational or actual process to be critiqued.
You've hit on something very important here. It's the continued conflation of Adam Smith's invisible hand with the hand of God that the neocon agenda spins around. It's truly bizarre to behold.
You've hit on something very important here. It's the continued conflation of Adam Smith's invisible hand with the hand of God that the neocon agenda spins around. It's truly bizarre to behold.
Once a person's position is reduced to 'forces that are invisible and impossible to fully understand' they are done, there isn't anything further to discuss because they have no rational or actual process to be critiqued.
That probably explains why I can't stop watching the perpetual train wreck.
You've hit on something very important here. It's the continued conflation of Adam Smith's invisible hand with the hand of God that the neocon agenda spins around. It's truly bizarre to behold.
Once a person's position is reduced to 'forces that are invisible and impossible to fully understand' they are done, there isn't anything further to discuss because they have no rational or actual process to be critiqued.
It makes absolutely perfect sense... once you realize that they don't believe their own claptrap for a second. Its not that they believe in the invisible forces of the market, its that they want YOU to believe in the invisible forces of the market so you don't see them deliberately rigging the system in their own favor.
Its like a wealthy farmer digging a canal from the communal lake to their fields in the middle of the night. Of course he wants you to think that the sudden growth of his crops is due to the whims of nature or the hand of god: it simultaneously justifies his own prosperity and keeps you from lynching him for theft.
Its like a wealthy farmer digging a canal from the communal lake to their fields in the middle of the night. Of course he wants you to think that the sudden growth of his crops is due to the whims of nature or the hand of god: it simultaneously justifies his own prosperity and keeps you from lynching him for theft.
God helps those who help themselves, what's the problem?
Its like a wealthy farmer digging a canal from the communal lake to their fields in the middle of the night. Of course he wants you to think that the sudden growth of his crops is due to the whims of nature or the hand of god: it simultaneously justifies his own prosperity and keeps you from lynching him for theft.God helps those who help themselves, what's the problem?
Because you can take the exact same equation remove God (whichever one or combination you prefer) and get the exact same outcome.
So God has no impact and is of no value in the equation.
Its like a wealthy farmer digging a canal from the communal lake to their fields in the middle of the night. Of course he wants you to think that the sudden growth of his crops is due to the whims of nature or the hand of god: it simultaneously justifies his own prosperity and keeps you from lynching him for theft.God helps those who help themselves, what's the problem?Because you can take the exact same equation remove God (whichever one or combination you prefer) and get the exact same outcome.
So God has no impact and is of no value in the equation.
Indeed Abe; I was making a snide point about how the Adam-Smith's-invisible-hand-equals-the-hand-of-God crowd have given up christian values in favor of commerce (seriously, if the hungry would just eat the homeless, that'd solve two problems right there) but sarcasm doesn't come across so well on the interwebz.
Its like a wealthy farmer digging a canal from the communal lake to their fields in the middle of the night. Of course he wants you to think that the sudden growth of his crops is due to the whims of nature or the hand of god: it simultaneously justifies his own prosperity and keeps you from lynching him for theft.God helps those who help themselves, what's the problem?
The problem is two fold. First they're helping themselves to a disproportionate share of the public good (water in this case)
Secondly they'll try to stop anyone else from doing the same thing.
Indeed Abe; I was making a snide point about how the Adam-Smith's-invisible-hand-equals-the-hand-of-God crowd have given up christian values in favor of commerce (seriously, if the hungry would just eat the homeless, that'd solve two problems right there) but sarcasm doesn't come across so well on the interwebz.Its like a wealthy farmer digging a canal from the communal lake to their fields in the middle of the night. Of course he wants you to think that the sudden growth of his crops is due to the whims of nature or the hand of god: it simultaneously justifies his own prosperity and keeps you from lynching him for theft.God helps those who help themselves, what's the problem?Because you can take the exact same equation remove God (whichever one or combination you prefer) and get the exact same outcome.
So God has no impact and is of no value in the equation.
Ah, Poe's Law caught me.
|
I provided these examples to hope that you were genuinely interested in exploring the possibility of societies without authority and what could be learned from the example they offer.Now, this is an interesting idea. You see, there literally is no such thing as a society without authority.
Human societies come in many different flavors. They vary wildly. In fact, they run such a wide gamut of structure, culture, makeup, and outlook that there is absolutely nothing that you can say they all have in common, culturally.
Except for one thing: Respect for one's elders.
I had the privilege of studying under Dr. Valerie Jenness while in school for the duration of her course on deviance (happily, she also presided over my commencement). Dr. Jenness has the distinction of having - literally - co-written the definition of deviance. One of the most memorable classes I had was where she asked us to name a cultural trait shared by every society - one thing that no society on earth would consider strange or deviant. Everyone thought they had an answer. One by one, she listened to the students and gave them immediate counterexamples of societies that did not conform to the trait in question. At the end of her pop poll, no one had come up with the correct response - that every culture, every human society carries a fundamental cultural respect for the generation that came before. They all defer to the wisdom and authority of their elders. Every single one.
Even if you remove all formal structure of authority from your cultural system, you're still left with the informal authority and disproportionate influence granted the older generation. And, in societies that lack the formalities of codified government, such authority serves as the only recognized governing body in its stead.
She would have been wrong, at least if you count a timescale of about two generations. The late fifties to mid-seventies of the 20th century in Germany saw a youth that, more often than not, lacked this respect for the elders, as the catastrophic events of WW2 led the german youth to question the parents behavior during the nazi regime and their common question how their parents and grandparents, their teachers and politicians could let those events happen, more often then not remained unanswered.
A good part of the youth rejected any possible respect for their elders and instead took a, often radical, stand against their way of life. The trench between the pre war society and the post war sciety was never really bridged and can be seen in al its 'glory' in most parts of the mor intellectual (largely based on an intellectual subculture that formed in the late sixites) press whenever questions of 'national pride', 'german military' or 'homeland' arise.
Sure, most made their peace with their parents and grandparents (and newer generations never had this problem), but in many cases the 'natural respect' was never quite reinstated.
Edit: please excuse the somewhat sloppy english in this paragraph, but it isn't my native language and I am not in the best shape today :-|
As I try to bring up every time people start talking about "lack of respect for the elders" :
Exactly. Everyone thinks that the young people don't respect them as much as they ought to, when they're older. That doesn't change the fact that young people, in general, still do afford them more base respect than they would younger people.
|
|
As I try to bring up every time people start talking about "lack of respect for the elders" :Exactly. Everyone thinks that the young people don't respect them as much as they ought to, when they're older. That doesn't change the fact that young people, in general, still do afford them more base respect than they would younger people.
The developements in germany I wrote about weren't these kind. Of course they were part of an historic cataclysm and might well be the exception that proves the point.
Indeed Abe; I was making a snide point about how the Adam-Smith's-invisible-hand-equals-the-hand-of-God crowd have given up christian values in favor of commerce (seriously, if the hungry would just eat the homeless, that'd solve two problems right there) but sarcasm doesn't come across so well on the interwebz.Its like a wealthy farmer digging a canal from the communal lake to their fields in the middle of the night. Of course he wants you to think that the sudden growth of his crops is due to the whims of nature or the hand of god: it simultaneously justifies his own prosperity and keeps you from lynching him for theft.God helps those who help themselves, what's the problem?Because you can take the exact same equation remove God (whichever one or combination you prefer) and get the exact same outcome.
So God has no impact and is of no value in the equation.
Idle, passing question that flitted across my brain and could be easily looked up elsewhere but I am lazy:
What were the religious inclinations of Adam Smith? Where's Kirth?
Yes, German hippie leftwing terrorist counterculture made the USA in the sixties, even with the ghetto riots, look tame.
Also, compare sixties American psycedelic acts with their German counterparts like Can or Faust or Neu!. Germans rocked out!
Some jobs require regular blood tests. As I work in computer security, I'm in one of them. Note, also, that as my back problems are progressive, there is a high probability that I will need to go on permanent disability within ten years (this is what my doctor told me - he, also, told me that most people with an MRI like mine are already on permanent disability - he was very surprised that I've been able to return to work, so it may happen sooner than later). So, cheap access is, also, important to me. With the drugs I'm on now, I am seriously sleep deprived (I had about a 30 hour deficit last week). MJ may help me sleep and deal with the pain and stress.
Oh god, that is a terrible situation.
*passes a fat blunt*
You’re an interesting guy DD. I can’t imagine being in your stressful position but still devoting a portion of my free time to arguing with a bunch of gamers on the internet I’ve never met about every topic that has ever existed. Although maybe I’m looking at it wrong, maybe being half out of your mind from pain and sleep deprivation makes these conversations that much more funny.
Kudos on being as coherent in your arguments as you are now given your situation. You seem to drift sometimes but even then you’re more articulate than I am fully sober and definitely far more than when I’m messed up.
My arguments then are usually about how the word purple is the most ridiculous sounding in the English language.
I guess I fall on the conservative (self responsibility) side of this debate, but I'd like to bring up something the media isn't really saying.
The number one factor that will reduce all of our healthcare costs is personal awareness/responsibility. If the average person in our society knew more about health, healthcare, and biology in general, better choices could be made. If society as a whole pushed these concepts and punished those who transgress, better choices WOULD be made.
I don't mind paying for Grandma's dialysis, or a person's MS ect.
I definately mind paying for some fat lazy slob's third heart attack!
Diseases that stem from bad life choices shouldn't be covered by the insurance companies. If you sun tan 3 times a week in your 20's, I'm all for letting you die (or pay for out of pocket 100%) for your malignant melinoma. I'll bet if you break down cost of health in our county, you'll find we pay more for avoidable issues, than naturally occuring ones.
How about creating a "health score" for people, and making that number public knowlege. In fact, if I'm paying for a person's healthcare, why not make the whole file public knowlege? Once you make me responsible for others, I don't see why they get to act how ever they want. Afterall, I'm now invested in their health (whether I like it or not).
Personal responsibility sounds great, but in practice when it comes to insurance would be a nightmare. Gender and racial based illnesses alone would lead to headaches.
As I try to bring up every time people start talking about "lack of respect for the elders" :Exactly. Everyone thinks that the young people don't respect them as much as they ought to, when they're older. That doesn't change the fact that young people, in general, still do afford them more base respect than they would younger people.
I sometimes wonder whether the reason we never seem to learn as a race is that the wisest of us is continually shown the door and replaced by children filled with bravado and ignorance.
To a certain extent this is unavoidable, but if respecting one's elders helps mitigate it, I'm not sure that is a bad trade-off...
I sometimes wonder whether the reason we never seem to learn as a race is that the wisest of us is continually shown the door and replaced by children filled with bravado and ignorance.
You could also say the problem is that the old idiots haven't died off yet, they're still in power.
An old man is a repository of failed ideas that we're moving away from.
|
I sometimes wonder whether the reason we never seem to learn as a race is that the wisest of us is continually shown the door and replaced by children filled with bravado and ignorance.
You could also say the problem is that the old idiots haven't died off yet, they're still in power.
An old man is a repository of failed ideas that we're moving away from.
*cough* Scalia *cough*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I fall on the conservative (self responsibility) side of this debate, but I'd like to bring up something the media isn't really saying.
The number one factor that will reduce all of our healthcare costs is personal awareness/responsibility. If the average person in our society knew more about health, healthcare, and biology in general, better choices could be made. If society as a whole pushed these concepts and punished those who transgress, better choices WOULD be made.
I don't mind paying for Grandma's dialysis, or a person's MS ect.
I definately mind paying for some fat lazy slob's third heart attack!Diseases that stem from bad life choices shouldn't be covered by the insurance companies. If you sun tan 3 times a week in your 20's, I'm all for letting you die (or pay for out of pocket 100%) for your malignant melinoma. I'll bet if you break down cost of health in our county, you'll find we pay more for avoidable issues, than naturally occuring ones.
How about creating a "health score" for people, and making that number public knowlege. In fact, if I'm paying for a person's healthcare, why not make the whole file public knowlege? Once you make me responsible for others, I don't see why they get to act how ever they want. Afterall, I'm now invested in their health (whether I like it or not).
You're essentially saying that our individual medical records should be public.
How about instead we pay for preventive care? Things like education on health issues (tanning too much, eating better, etc), and access to health care professionals who can evaluate and inform individuals on their specific issues. These things have been shown to reduce the overall cost of health care over the life of an individual.
How about instead we pay for preventive care? Things like education on health issues (tanning too much, eating better, etc), and access to health care professionals who can evaluate and inform individuals on their specific issues. These things have been shown to reduce the overall cost of health care over the life of an individual.
Freedom inevitably leads to people making choices that are bad for the public good. If i want to scarf pizza till i burst, that's my right. I'm not asking anyone to pay for it. You can't make my health choices your responsibility and then use that as an excuse to control my choices.
We're all adults. We've all had health class. We all know our actions have consequences. If you don't want to pay for the foibles and bad choices of others then don't take control of their health care.
|
|
All preventive care cannot hold of all illnesses that require expensive treatment.
The value of certain preventive measures is constantly under review, and not always do medical scientists agree about the value of preventive measures. Even some more recent ideas 'tested' and 'tried' by some universities are rejected by others and sometimes are proven to be less effective (or less hurtful) then thought.
Of course, consuming to much 'bad' cholesterine, lack of certain vitamins (and secondary metabolites) due to bad diet habits hurt your health (how much however is still influenced by other, often unknow or uninfluecable factors).
If you try to take all these into account, no insurance will ever be feasible, leaving everybody to pay for himself, full value.
If this were done, I would not sit here, writing this, havind diabetes type 1 (hardly influencable, requiring life long medication and frequent - best several times daily - testing). I developed this while still at the university and aquiring a job paying for the medication (and life beyond the medication)in time to stay fit would have been a near impossibility.
I am glad my country provides health care.
|
|
How about instead we pay for preventive care? Things like education on health issues (tanning too much, eating better, etc), and access to health care professionals who can evaluate and inform individuals on their specific issues. These things have been shown to reduce the overall cost of health care over the life of an individual.Freedom inevitably leads to people making choices that are bad for the public good. If i want to scarf pizza till i burst, that's my right. I'm not asking anyone to pay for it. You can't make my health choices your responsibility and then use that as an excuse to control my choices.
We're all adults. We've all had health class. We all know our actions have consequences. If you don't want to pay for the foibles and bad choices of others then don't take control of their health care.
It comes down to this truth the other side doesn't want to deal with.
Do you want to allow people to suffer and die because they don't have access to healthcare, or not.
They may be lazy and fat, they may not take care of themselves. But as a society are you ok with them suffering and dying when we have the resources to not have that happen.
The answer is no, which is why we make hospitals treat everyone..
Now the problem. Who is paying for our altruism?
Right now it is the hospital, who increases the charge on those who can pay to pay for those who can't, which makes it the insurance companies with then mean...we pay anyway if we get insurance.
So why not cut the BS and the middlemen and just have universal coverage, since we functionally do anyway, only we do it in such a backward inefficient way that we pay more in healthcare than any other country in the world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So why not cut the BS and the middlemen and just have universal coverage, since we functionally do anyway, only we do it in such a backward inefficient way that we pay more in healthcare than any other country in the world.
Because it would make the CEOs of the insurance and medical industries unhappy and then their campaign contributions wouldn't flow so freely.
So why not cut the BS and the middlemen and just have universal coverage, since we functionally do anyway, only we do it in such a backward inefficient way that we pay more in healthcare than any other country in the world.
I don't have a problem with that: Government can spend money however it wants. What I object to is the idea that then entitles the government to tell me how to live. EVERY aspect of your life affects your health. Give someone the right to legislate your health and they're running your entire life.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Hospital emergency rooms are legally required to treat patients. They can't say 'you do not have insurance so please go sit in the corner while you bleed to death' (or, 'we have been unable to determine whether you have insurance because you are unconscious, if you come too before you bleed to death we'll ask'). Ergo, in a sense the United States already has 'universal health care'."
Sorry, I have to step in on this one. When I'm not playing Pathfinder, I'm an Emergency Physician. One of the things I love about my job is that I never have to ask anyone what health insurance they have. I just try to treat my patients and help people as best I can. But saying, that people can just go to the emergency room is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing as the US having universal healthcare. If it was the same thing, then emergency departments around the country would have the resources they need to handle the influx of patients that come to them. Throughout the entire country the emergency departments are always backed up and what we call "bed blocked" because there are far more patients coming in on a daily basis than the system is designed to hold. And it's true that many of them are coming in when they don't actually have an emergency, and yes, that's annoying (very...trust me), but at the same time, where the hell else are most people going to go? They don't have health insurance, or enough health insurance to cover what they need. There aren't enough primary care physicians out there to see them all, so even if they can find one that'll see them for cheap/free, it's going to take months before you get an appointment. George Bush famously made the stupid comment "Just go to the ER", and it lead to a wave of patients just adding to the line in the waiting room without actually doing anything to help people.
For the record, I love the idea of having a national healthcare system. I like the idea of socialized medicine. The United States is the only 1st world nation on earth without some sort of an intelligent healthcare system. It must change and it will change. If we continued going in the direction that we were, the national average per family of healthcare was going to be THE SAME as the national average income per family by 2025. Obviously that's not going to happen, the system will collapse before then. Obama wanted to change things and give free healthcare to everyone in the country while at the same time decreasing the overall healthcare cost for the country and elevating the level of care for everyone. And in response, the Tea Party pulled a "Godwin" and put up signs of him with a Hitler mustache. They wouldn't let him change things for the better because they truly would rather see this country fail than this president succeed at something.
Sorry...enough ranting.
|
|
But saying, that people can just go to the emergency room is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing as the US having universal healthcare.
You are actually "ranting" about what I wrote... despite the fact that we are in complete agreement on this.
What I wrote was that the requirement for emergency rooms to treat people provided 'universal health care' (note the scare quotes) "in a sense". I also then said that it was comparatively BAD care... because of all the reasons you list.
The implication you apparently took, that 'ER health care' is just wonderful and a great way to handle things, was not my intent at all.
But saying, that people can just go to the emergency room is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing as the US having universal healthcare.You are actually "ranting" about what I wrote... despite the fact that we are in complete agreement on this.
What I wrote was that the requirement for emergency rooms to treat people provided 'universal health care' (note the scare quotes) "in a sense". I also then said that it was comparatively BAD care... because of all the reasons you list.
The implication you apparently took, that 'ER health care' is just wonderful and a great way to handle things, was not my intent at all.
1: Sorry for not officially quoting you in my post...despite the fact that forums are a common part of the internet, I'm actually not very experienced with them, and how the quote system works, and I messed it up.
2: I understand that you and I agree, though looking through my post, it does sound like I was trying to pick a fight. I'm not. Obviously I'm fairly close to this issue and I tend to be fairly passionate about it because I want to help my patients as best I can. I meant no offense.
3: Slight change in topic: One thing that I think people have a misunderstanding of is why going to the emergency room is a bad system of healthcare. When you say it's a "comparatively BAD care", I think you mean that it's a bad idea for the system as a whole if that's the only way that people can get their care. I agree with you. I think there is a misunderstanding that some people think going to the emergency room means you are going to get bad care (as in, actual poor medical choices being made), which is demonstrably false, and which I don't think is what you were implying in your post. The emergency department has vastly more medical resources than pretty much any other part of the hospital. We can manage large traumas, devastating illness, get cat scans and MRIs and blood tests and have the results within a couple of hours, which if it was in a clinic somewhere, could literally take weeks. We can pull in specialists in nearly every department of healthcare and have them come to the bedside in minutes if we need to. That's one of the reasons that we are so back logged and busy all the time, people just want everything done all at once instead of trying to wade through a system that has them taking weeks to get tests back and months to see a specialist. It's just easier for people to go to the ER and have it all done at once in one visit. The problem is, that's not what the ER is designed for. It's designed to rule out and manage emergency lethal illnesses, not diagnose every little ache and pain. If I had a dollar for every patient I've seen who got pissed off at me because I didn't order a STAT MRI for their back pain, I'd finally be able to pay off my absurd student loans. I have to explain to them that just because I CAN order a test and have it done immediately doesn't mean that I SHOULD do it. As an ED physician it's my job to order tests to help me rule out an emergency, and if I don't think (in this example) someone is having a condition that will lead to the loss of life or limb within 24 hours, then a very expensive emergency test is not indicated.
In some ways going to the ER will get you bad care. This isn't meant as an insult to ER physicians.
You'll get wonderful urgent care. What you won't get is maintenance and follow-up. You'll get the immediate crisis taken care of. You won't get help managing a chronic condition. You won't get the drugs you need to keep it from recurring. You might get a referral or a prescription, but if you're going to the ER because you can't pay and they have to treat you, you won't be able to afford the prescription or a visit to a specialist.The ER is great at what it does, but it's not a health care system by itself.
Exactly. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who either think it is a healthcare system or have no other choice.
Do you also have a problem with driving regulations? Or Smoking laws? The thing is we don't live as isolated entitites. The actions we do and actions done on us impact far and wide.
And we don't live as mindless communal insects either. Personal liberties still exist. The ideal amount of government interference in a persons life is as little as necceasry, and this ideology doesn't even come close to that.
While there needs to be a line drawn between the rights of an individual and the rights of a society, that line is far, far, FAR from mandating very personal information, invasive exams, and dictating whether or not adults ruin their appitite before dinner. Me scarfing down a domino's pizza is not something that needs to be regulated under the interstate commerce clause.
That's the thing though. If i don't want to deal with them then I don't have to
As it is, the private companies that are the present status quo are pretty invasive as they are.
.
And I'm fairly sure that if you actually examined how healthcare works in more civilised setups you'll find that they are not nearly as invasive as you fear.
I'm not going to believe you have an actual argument if all you have is a backhanded ad hom.
The main problem with our present system as opposed to a single payer model (which unfortuantely Obamacare is not) is that it's primary goal is to enrich the pockets of layers of middlemen.
Again, I have no problem with a single payer system [i]as long as
The actions we do and actions done on us impact far and wide<----- That doesn't become an excuse to regulate every aspect of someone's life. If you want to pay to treat my insomnia thats fine, if the government chooses to institute mandatory bedtimes because it doesn't want to pay for anyone's insomnia or mandate eating brocoli because its good for me then they can go to hell.
The federal government has a limited amount of power. Its powers are enumerated. If something isn't on the list or necessary to do something on the list they can't do it. That's a very important check on government power and one i don't want to see blown open, no matter how well intentioned Obamacare is. Obama will not always be president, we will not always have a deadlocked do nothing government.
I'm hoping that the individual mandate will be severed from the rest of Obamacare, and the rest of Obamacare will remain in place. Telling an insurance company incorporated in Delaware how they have to operate outside of Delaware is certainty within their power.
I'm not supporting the current system, or the insurance companies. My problem with Obamacare is that the individual mandate isn't legal and it isn't far left enough... because it isn't a left wing plan at all. The primary source of funding is lower to middle class males. We could have single payer health care without hooking people up to a calorie counter just by closing the Romney tax loophole.
Doo de doo de doo. Oh, what's this?
Free, quality health care now!
Without the individual mandate, you don't have Obamacare because without that core engine the whole thing falls apart. What you have then, is the health system as it existed prior to the man taking office. The costs of health care are an issue, and without the mandate, you still have the problem of healthcare to the uninsured.
No, you have a problem with health insurance companies staying in business. People with serious healthcare problems can get sick, buy health insurance only when they need it, get treated, adn then drop it when they're better.
Part of me wonders if that wasn't the plan... build it up, let the sc jenga a peice and drop the whole tower into place.
Or am i overestimating my elected officials?
Without the individual mandate, you don't have Obamacare because without that core engine the whole thing falls apart. What you have then, is the health system as it existed prior to the man taking office. The costs of health care are an issue, and without the mandate, you still have the problem of healthcare to the uninsured.
No, you have a problem with health insurance companies staying in business. People with serious healthcare problems can get sick, buy health insurance only when they need it, get treated, adn then drop it when they're better.
Part of me wonders if that wasn't the plan... build it up, let the sc jenga a peice and drop the whole tower into place.
Or am i overestimating my elected officials?
You know I think you might be reaching, but I've suggested similiar things in other cases in the past so I'm simply going to note you said it and if it comes to pass that it happens you get props for pointing it out and if it doesn't nothing else gets said on the subject from me.
I could see it being that way but I don't think it is would be what I'm trying to say.
Or that if they'd done exactly the same thing as the current mandate, but set it up as a tax and a refund it would also be fine.
Yup. Which is a big part of why "they're taking our freedom by making us buy something!" doesn't ring true (for me).
Tax and refund is no different than a fine. The primary (not secondary) purpose of a tax HAS to be to raise revenue for the general fund, not change behavior. If you're trying to coerce people into buying a product its no different than passing a law outright requiring its purchase. If you don't have the power to make that requirement then you can't subvert that restriction by calling it a tax.
anyone here really believe theres any difference between dubuya, obama and romney in politics they have or will enact? If so, by all means tell me how one of those will start fewer/more wars than the others, end fewer/more wars or do anything whatsoever to bring about say a socialist style medicine where everyone can get free treatment, just flashing a national id card, and medicines being supported with 32/72/100% handouts like in finland? (the more expensive and neccesary for life, the higher the support. f.ex. aranesp a hemoglobin drug usually costing about 600 euros a shot, im buying them at 50c :p )
Otoh you guys dont even have a proper voting system, where people are in a national database with their national id, the national id card, a home etc etc etc... and when its voting time, a notification is sent to the address allowing voting at the spot closest to home (your name is no other list), show up with the id card and get checked off and add your paper vote.
Votes being counted by usually youth in the parties and paid roughly 600e for a few days of getting ready for the job, supervising the voting and finally counting them. This would require some 50.000 americans willing to earn 600 or 1000 dollars for a two evenings and one really long day. At the horribly expensive cost of 50 million nationally. But thats unacceptable, as those mediots like clinton/george/obama/romney just might loose to a peoples candidate.
time to ...rock them in their ivory towers... if not you, then who? if not now, then when will there be time? Make them feel the rage and the wrath of the coming storm. Make them feel the fire of the peoples storm..
time to ...rock them in their ivory towers... if not you, then who? if not now, then when will there be time? Make them feel the rage and the wrath of the coming storm. Make them feel the fire of the peoples storm..
Vive le Galt!