This Is How Much Obamacare Penalties Will Cost You

[DarkLightHitomi]

Healthcare is another victim of a the government moving towards more security and less freedom, next thing you know it will be a crime to not buy flu shots. (which would bad for me, never get sick except when the army forced me to take a flu shot, then I spent weeks in the hospital, but don't ya know that flu shots prevent that?)

[A Man In Black]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Healthcare is another victim of a the government moving towards more security and less freedom, next thing you know it will be a crime to not buy flu shots.

Surgeons cut people open all the time. Watch out, surgeons will pounce and stab you to death any day now!

[Irontruth]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Healthcare is another victim of a the government moving towards more security and less freedom, next thing you know it will be a crime to not buy flu shots. (which would bad for me, never get sick except when the army forced me to take a flu shot, then I spent weeks in the hospital, but don't ya know that flu shots prevent that?)

There's any interesting effect that's going to disappear in another 20-30 years.

People born in the 30's to 50's can still remember polio. People born in the 60's don't remember it as vividly and people born after 1970 don't remember it at all.

Oddly enough, the debate about vaccines is mostly between people too young to remember polio.

The flu vaccine is of limited use. Most strains mutate pretty fast and they go through swings of prevalence as well. Plus the flu vaccine hasn't been terribly effective.

On the other hand, vaccines for things like whooping cough should be mandatory. Not to save your life, but to make sure you don't kill someone else. Seriously, if you've never had a vaccine for whooping cough, you can kill someone else's infant child because you can become a carrier if exposed. Infants can't be vaccinated against it, because the vaccine is dangerous to them. So adults have to get it.

Public health is just that, public. If you can carry a disease and give it to me and that disease is easily preventable through a vaccine, you're not just an a~@%!@#, you are literally a public menace.

That isn't a nanny state. That is using science to make our lives better.

People who are opposed to vaccines are opposed to completely preventing this disease.

You might claim that I'm trying to pull heart strings by showing babies suffering from a disease... EXCEPT THAT IS THE EXACT NATURE OF THIS DISEASE.

Washington state has the highest rate of parents not getting pertussis vaccines. It also has the highest rate of pertussis cases. In addition, because the bacteria Bordtello Pertussis is being spread more rapidly, it is also mutating now. Meaning that the vaccine is becoming less effective.

If our societal herd immunity had been maintained (if 90% of humans are immune to something, those without the immunity are shielded because they rarely come in contact with the disease), these wouldn't be issues.

[thejeff]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Never heard of them, but why not take a look at the psychological effects of never having discipline, respect or responsibility?

And one of the hallmarks of the Prussian system was a lack of discipline respect and responsibility?

Which was my earlier point: The start of our education system may have been based on the Prussian model 150+ years ago,but we've changed it drastically since then.

And thanks MiB, that's exactly what I was wondering. I knew this Prussian thing had to be coming from somewhere.

[Krensky]

Irontruth wrote:

Public health is just that, public. If you can carry a disease and give it to me and that disease is easily preventable through a vaccine, you're not just an a+%%&&@, you are literally a public menace.

Careful with that brush. I am not immunized against pertussis or diphtheria. Not because I'm a kook or an a+%%&&@. I'm not immunized against them because the tetanus vaccine sends me into anaphylaxis.

People who can take the vaccines (and mild allergic reactions are not reasons to not take them) should. People who say otherwise are kooks.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Public health is just that, public. If you can carry a disease and give it to me and that disease is easily preventable through a vaccine, you're not just an a+%%&&@, you are literally a public menace.

Careful with that brush. I am not immunized against pertussis or diphtheria. Not because I'm a kook or an a+%%&&@. I'm not immunized against them because the tetanus vaccine sends me into anaphylaxis.

People who can take the vaccines (and mild allergic reactions are not reasons to not take them) should. People who say otherwise are kooks.

Obviously those allergic to a vaccine should be exempt. Which is one of the main reasons vaccinations are and should be required: So that those who can't take them can still benefit from herd immunity.

Irontruth wrote:

If our societal herd immunity had been maintained (if 90% of humans are immune to something, those without the immunity are shielded because they rarely come in contact with the disease), these wouldn't be issues.

In fact, since no vaccine is 100% effective, it's better to be the one unvaccinated person in a vaccinated population than the one vaccinated one in an infected population.

[Andrew R]

Krensky wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Public health is just that, public. If you can carry a disease and give it to me and that disease is easily preventable through a vaccine, you're not just an a+%%&&@, you are literally a public menace.

Careful with that brush. I am not immunized against pertussis or diphtheria. Not because I'm a kook or an a+%%&&@. I'm not immunized against them because the tetanus vaccine sends me into anaphylaxis.

People who can take the vaccines (and mild allergic reactions are not reasons to not take them) should. People who say otherwise are kooks.

The only legitimate fears i have for the "mandatory Vaccinations" is what happens when they begin playing with things like trying to "cure" gays and the like once we are accustom to doing as told without looking at what they are doing to us. Our bodies are our most treasured thing and the gov should have no part in telling us what we HAVE to do to them and little in what we cannot.

[thejeff]

Andrew R wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Public health is just that, public. If you can carry a disease and give it to me and that disease is easily preventable through a vaccine, you're not just an a+%%&&@, you are literally a public menace.

Careful with that brush. I am not immunized against pertussis or diphtheria. Not because I'm a kook or an a+%%&&@. I'm not immunized against them because the tetanus vaccine sends me into anaphylaxis.

People who can take the vaccines (and mild allergic reactions are not reasons to not take them) should. People who say otherwise are kooks.

The only legitimate fears i have for the "mandatory Vaccinations" is what happens when they begin playing with things like trying to "cure" gays and the like once we are accustom to doing as told without looking at what they are doing to us. Our bodies are our most treasured thing and the gov should have no part in telling us what we HAVE to do to them and little in what we cannot.

I'm glad we don't have any real problems if this is the kind of thing you have to worry about. We've had mandatory childhood vaccinations (at least for schools which makes them practically mandatory if not technically) for generations. And there have been protests against government interference in our precious bodies since the 1800s. Meanwhile, thanks largely to vaccination, childhood deaths from disease have dropped through the floor and many common diseases are simply not an issue in the developed world.

Vaccination works and only works if applied broadly. Herd immunity only really applies after 85-90% of the population is immune. You really need mandates to get that high.

And seriously? Vaccination against "teh gay"? You know it isn't catching, right? I don't even begin to understand how mandatory vaccination could be a precedent for something like that.
Also, even with the backlash against gays on the right, homosexuality is far more openly acceptable today than it ever has been in western civilization. We're not going backward on that, without far more serious changes than vaccine law.

[Andrew R]

thejeff wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Public health is just that, public. If you can carry a disease and give it to me and that disease is easily preventable through a vaccine, you're not just an a+%%&&@, you are literally a public menace.

Careful with that brush. I am not immunized against pertussis or diphtheria. Not because I'm a kook or an a+%%&&@. I'm not immunized against them because the tetanus vaccine sends me into anaphylaxis.

People who can take the vaccines (and mild allergic reactions are not reasons to not take them) should. People who say otherwise are kooks.

The only legitimate fears i have for the "mandatory Vaccinations" is what happens when they begin playing with things like trying to "cure" gays and the like once we are accustom to doing as told without looking at what they are doing to us. Our bodies are our most treasured thing and the gov should have no part in telling us what we HAVE to do to them and little in what we cannot.

I'm glad we don't have any real problems if this is the kind of thing you have to worry about. We've had mandatory childhood vaccinations (at least for schools which makes them practically mandatory if not technically) for generations. And there have been protests against government interference in our precious bodies since the 1800s. Meanwhile, thanks largely to vaccination, childhood deaths from disease have dropped through the floor and many common diseases are simply not an issue in the developed world.

Vaccination works and only works if applied broadly. Herd immunity only really applies after 85-90% of the population is immune. You really need mandates to get that high.

And seriously? Vaccination against "teh gay"? You know it isn't catching, right? I don't even begin to understand how mandatory vaccination could be a precedent for something like that.
Also, even with the backlash against gays on the right, homosexuality is far more openly acceptable today than it ever has been in western...

There are still enough that want to treat it like a defect so it would come as little surprise if they made an attempt to cure. Or some other attempt to engineer people without their knowledge or consent.

[thejeff]

Andrew R wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

The only legitimate fears i have for the "mandatory Vaccinations" is what happens when they begin playing with things like trying to "cure" gays and the like once we are accustom to doing as told without looking at what they are doing to us. Our bodies are our most treasured thing and the gov should have no part in telling us what we HAVE to do to them and little in what we cannot.

And seriously? Vaccination against "teh gay"? You know it isn't catching, right? I don't even begin to understand how mandatory vaccination could be a precedent for something like that.

Also, even with the backlash against gays on the right, homosexuality is far more openly acceptable today than it ever has been in western civilization. We're not going backward on that, without far more serious changes than vaccine law.

There are still enough that want to treat it like a defect so it would come as little surprise if they made an attempt to cure. Or some other attempt to engineer people without their knowledge or consent.

Yeah. It's been done in the past. When being gay was a mental disorder and acting on it a crime. I'm less worried about it now than at any point in my life.

If you're worried about it, vote against the Republican crazies and their enablers. Don't oppose good medical health programs on the grounds that someone, someday might claim them as precedent to do something crazy.

[DarkLightHitomi]

That's the problem though, if you give the government more control over healthcare then it is the minority that gets to decide what needs cured. And that minority will only get smaller (until the revolution which will eventually occur if things keep going like this regardless of the "good" that is done)

[thejeff]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

That's the problem though, if you give the government more control over healthcare then it is the minority that gets to decide what needs cured. And that minority will only get smaller (until the revolution which will eventually occur if things keep going like this regardless of the "good" that is done)

What minority? And why will it only get smaller?

[DarkLightHitomi]

Those in power, even in the US, are the minority, and those who will do anything to take as much as they can (which will eventually become those in power, directly or indirectly, if they haven't already), will have to turn on each other when the common people don't have anymore to be taken, thus the minority will grow smaller until something breaks and revolution occurs to topple those at the top.

It is a repeating cycle.

[A Man In Black]

The PPACA is obviously the first step to a totalitarian government that will persecute homosexuals! Of course, DLH and Andrew R don't actually have any evidence that this is happening or will happen, of course. You'll just need to take their word for it.

[thejeff]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Those in power, even in the US, are the minority, and those who will do anything to take as much as they can (which will eventually become those in power, directly or indirectly, if they haven't already), will have to turn on each other when the common people don't have anymore to be taken, thus the minority will grow smaller until something breaks and revolution occurs to topple those at the top.

It is a repeating cycle.

So we should stop the government from helping people get medical care, because the government will inevitably abuse it.

Should we instead simply leave it up to private markets to see what gets cured? We know what happens then: Rich people get treated as they do now. Poor people do not.
We have a mixed system now. Do we have evidence that the private markets are performing (and covering, in the case of insurance) effective treatments that the government healthcare wouldn't cover? Or that the government is forcing ineffective treatment on people in ways that the private markets don't?

Furthermore, I disagree with your basic premise. Consolidation of power is a general rule, but it can be and it has been interrupted short of revolution and complete overthrow of the system. The course of history is not anywhere near as simple as a steady progression from freedom to slavery, interrupted by revolts that set you back to freedom.
Revolution is at least as likely to lead to autocracy and repression and, especially in democratic countries, freedoms can be expanded and the relative power of the majority increased incrementally and peacefully.

[DarkLightHitomi]

Keep in mind that not all the bad rules are intentionally bad either, mostly it is a case of individuals making it easier for themselves which leaves opportunities that then can get exploited, not always with recognition of the consequences. You can't just look at the same data, you have to look at the big picture and the little picture and all the different aspects together. when you step back a bit (and be truly objective) you can see patterns.

Yes, there are more possibilities for the type of change but the change is what happens, it doesn't matter if the revolution was prevented or what the results of a revolution were, it was still expansive change that usually addressed the major problems, (even if new problems arose from it).

[Paul Watson]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Those in power, even in the US, are the minority, and those who will do anything to take as much as they can (which will eventually become those in power, directly or indirectly, if they haven't already), will have to turn on each other when the common people don't have anymore to be taken, thus the minority will grow smaller until something breaks and revolution occurs to topple those at the top.

It is a repeating cycle.

Given that pretty much all of Europe, and Canada, have had socialised healthcare* for more than 50 yesars. No sign of revolution here. So I'd take your prediction with a couple of tons of salt.

Spoiler:

I mean proper socialised healthcare, not the anemic insurance company subsidy you guys call socialised medicine because you don't like it and call everything you don't ;like socialist or communist with absolutely no idea what the words actually mean.

[thejeff]

Paul Watson wrote:

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Those in power, even in the US, are the minority, and those who will do anything to take as much as they can (which will eventually become those in power, directly or indirectly, if they haven't already), will have to turn on each other when the common people don't have anymore to be taken, thus the minority will grow smaller until something breaks and revolution occurs to topple those at the top.

It is a repeating cycle.

Given that pretty much all of Europe, and Canada, have had socialised healthcare* for more than 50 yesars. No sign of revolution here. So I'd take your prediction with a couple of tons of salt.

** spoiler omitted **

Don't forget the much (most?) healthcare in the US is socialized too. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA system, Tricare. Not only do those cover a lot of people, but they tend to be very expensive populations.

Then add in all the government employees, covered in the private market, but paid for by the government.

Essentially we've just socialized all of the expensive parts and left the insurance companies to profit from the rest.
We've done it as inefficiently as possible.

[Irontruth]

Krensky wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Public health is just that, public. If you can carry a disease and give it to me and that disease is easily preventable through a vaccine, you're not just an a+%%&&@, you are literally a public menace.

Careful with that brush. I am not immunized against pertussis or diphtheria. Not because I'm a kook or an a+%%&&@. I'm not immunized against them because the tetanus vaccine sends me into anaphylaxis.

People who can take the vaccines (and mild allergic reactions are not reasons to not take them) should. People who say otherwise are kooks.

I believe you.

On the other hand, I've never heard of this before, so I doubt your allergy is present in 11% of Americans.

Studies show us that if 90% of the population is immune to a disease, the remaining 10% gain the benefit of "herd immunity". Because the odds that you encounter another person without the immunity AND is a carrier is relatively slim. For diseases where you can be immune and a carrier, it doesn't help as much, but in those cases the disease tends to not spread very well amongst immune people anyways.

My vitriol is not aimed at people with valid medical conditions. It's aimed at people who think that their 'freedom' is being violated, because the rest of us don't want them to carry diseases that kill children.

[Krensky]

Oh, I figured as much.

Just like I said, careful with that brush, it's pretty broad.

Even the amish in my area get vaccinated. Because they decided their choices and beliefs were't more important than the safety of the 'English' children in their broader communities.

[thejeff]

Krensky wrote:

Oh, I figured as much.

Just like I said, careful with that brush, it's pretty broad.

Even the amish in my area get vaccinated. Because they decided their choices and beliefs were't more important than the safety of the 'English' children in their broader communities.

I didn't know that.

There are times I really like the Amish.

[Krensky]

I don't know about all, just the local ones.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

thejeff wrote:

There are times I really like the Amish.

I was looking for the bath scene in Witness, but I couldn't find it.

[Andrew R]

thejeff wrote:

Krensky wrote:

Oh, I figured as much.

Just like I said, careful with that brush, it's pretty broad.

Even the amish in my area get vaccinated. Because they decided their choices and beliefs were't more important than the safety of the 'English' children in their broader communities.

I didn't know that.

There are times I really like the Amish.

If it wasn't for the religious part i would have loved to join them

[A Man In Black]

Andrew R wrote:

If it wasn't for the religious part i would have loved to join them

I don't think you quite get the Amish. And weren't you just railing against people living in the US who don't speak English?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Boo-yah!

Myself, I couldn't live with the Amish. I like zippers.

[Andrew R]

A Man In Black wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

If it wasn't for the religious part i would have loved to join them

I don't think you quite get the Amish.

They are a perfect example of how small scale communism can be a good thing. they value hard work and earning your keep, working together and maintaining order. They are everything i agree with except the religion part. I would much rather live that life than what we do.

[Andrew R]

A Man In Black wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

If it wasn't for the religious part i would have loved to join them

I don't think you quite get the Amish. And weren't you just railing against people living in the US who don't speak English?

Um most of them do speak english even if they opt to speak something else among themselves.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Dammit, he's got you there.

I'm starting a new campaign to make social workers speak Goblin, btw.

[A Man In Black]

Andrew R wrote:

Um most of them do speak english even if they opt to speak something else among themselves.

And Missouri (and other states, I imagine) does offer paperwork and legal services to them in German.

[Andrew R]

A Man In Black wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

Um most of them do speak english even if they opt to speak something else among themselves.

And Missouri (and other states, I imagine) does offer paperwork and legal services to them in German.

In an effort to be PC, the amish as a whole seems to speak english just fine.

[Hitdice]

That's true, Andrew, but if you want an education you should really ask them about The English.

[Urizen]

Besides, the majority of Amish don't go beyond an 8th grade education.

[Andrew R]

Urizen wrote:

Besides, the majority of Amish don't go beyond an 8th grade education.

for the way of life they choose they do not need it. Sow and reap your fields, raise a house and barn, and do the crafts that their life demands, that is all they need and seem pretty happy not to know some of the many things that they have no need of.

[DarkLightHitomi]

Andrew R wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

If it wasn't for the religious part i would have loved to join them

I don't think you quite get the Amish.

They are a perfect example of how small scale communism can be a good thing. they value hard work and earning your keep, working together and maintaining order. They are everything i agree with except the religion part. I would much rather live that life than what we do.

I agree Andrew R but I think they succeed because of the religion, it stabilizes the society and almost freezes social change. Not that it would have to be that specific religion to get that effect.

[TriOmegaZero]

Yeah, any form of strong social control could accomplish that.

[A Man In Black]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I agree Andrew R but I think they succeed because of the religion, it stabilizes the society and almost freezes social change. Not that it would have to be that specific religion to get that effect.

It's not just religion. Most Mennonites are integrated with modern society; you'd never really know the difference between them and any other Protestant or Lutheran sect unless you went with them to church and paid close attention.

[Irontruth]

Andrew R wrote:

They are a perfect example of how small scale communism can be a good thing. they value hard work and earning your keep, working together and maintaining order. They are everything i agree with except the religion part. I would much rather live that life than what we do.

Why do you own a computer then? There are other ways to go live that kind of life.

[DarkLightHitomi]

You miss the point Irontruth, it's not just the simplicity, it's that they work together for the good of the community instead of each for their own pocketbooks.

They are non-capitalists.

[Krensky]

Of course you're forgetting the drug dealing and the crazy, stupid drunk kids, and the hate crimes they commit against each other.

Just sayin'.

[Andrew R]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

If it wasn't for the religious part i would have loved to join them

I don't think you quite get the Amish.

They are a perfect example of how small scale communism can be a good thing. they value hard work and earning your keep, working together and maintaining order. They are everything i agree with except the religion part. I would much rather live that life than what we do.

I agree Andrew R but I think they succeed because of the religion, it stabilizes the society and almost freezes social change. Not that it would have to be that specific religion to get that effect.

I understand that religion is important to community, especially a very close knit one, but i cannot make sense of any christian religion so that is a no go for me.

[Andrew R]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

You miss the point Irontruth, it's not just the simplicity, it's that they work together for the good of the community instead of each for their own pocketbooks.

They are non-capitalists.

Hippies almost understood it but then drugs and sex took over and to hell with greater good and work.

[A Man In Black]

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

They are non-capitalists.

Have you actually met any Amish people?

[DarkLightHitomi]

Perhaps you don't understand capitalism, it is about personal success over community success. Not exactly the Amish way.

[Irontruth]

I just want to make sure I get this right as well. The people opposed to the government telling us what to do want to live in a rigid society where people are told how to live... is this wrong?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

But not by the government!

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Andrew R wrote:

DarkLightHitomi wrote:

You miss the point Irontruth, it's not just the simplicity, it's that they work together for the good of the community instead of each for their own pocketbooks.

They are non-capitalists.

Hippies almost understood it but then drugs and sex took over and to hell with greater good and work.

Hippies were from day one about drugs and sex. What in the name of all that is holy are you talking about?

[Irontruth]

DLH - just so you're aware, I really don't care what you have to say. You've said a lot of stuff that if this were 80 years ago would have been in the literature for pro-euthanasia groups. You're entitled to your beliefs, but I have nothing about which I want to engage with you.

[DarkLightHitomi]

I am not pro-euthanasia.

The difference between punishing the unworthy and rewarding the worthy is that, in former I am responsible for their outcome, in the latter it is their own inaction, thus their own fault.

The control of religion is not always in the hands of the few, the control of the government is always in the hands of the few. Also religion is about belief, if you don't agree, leave, which is not always possible for the latter.

[FallofCamelot]

The only political issue we have with healthcare in the UK is which political party is going to support the NHS best.

Our "socialised" healthcare is utterly loved in this country by virtually everybody. So much so in fact that we put it in the Olympics opening ceremony.

I can walk into my doctor's with any ailment and be seen that day. If I have an accident I will be taken to hospital and treated. If I have a long term illness or require physiotherapy or care of any kind it will be provided for me.

At no point do I have to worry that my insurance will cover this or that I will be denied treatment for whatever reason. I get to concentrate on getting well.

Ours is a better system. Pure and simple.