And now of course with Obamacare, there's even more regressive taxation going on to keep the burden of healthcare costs on the lower and middle classes, only because its paid to a corporation is not considered a tax.
Bob, Alice, Janet, and Phil are all young and relatively healthy and working.
Sam has some very expensive cancer to treat
Oliver is out of work.
Addie is old and requires a lot of medical care.
Insurecorp overcharges Bob, Alice, Janet, and Phil for their healthcare, and puts it towards sam, and Addie. Taxes pay insure corp for Oliver, but over charge the government so they can pay for sam and addie (and blame oliver)
So the cost to the average person isn't going anywhere. The entire system is designed to keep corporate and upper income taxes low.
The ACA/Obamacare will do precisely the same, only even better. Now, the ACA is invalidating people's existing insurance plans, effectively forcing them into Obamacare and it's higher premiums. So (in your example), Bob, Alice, Janet & Phil will have already lost their existing plans (which they were told they could keep) if they are self employed; or may lose them if/when the delays in the employer mandate ever go into effect (probably about 3 days after the next election). They will then be forced (under penalty of fines and no coverage) into the exchanges to pay higher premiums to float the government program that does exactly what you lament the insurance companies and corporate America are now doing. What's changed? And all this after the American people were told they would on Average save $2,500 per year in health care costs under the new ACA. Last I heard, it will cost $2,500 more. That's a $5,000 difference per individual/family. Somehow that got left out of the talking points in favor of the ACA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wouldn't it be better to just raise taxes a little and have everyone be covered by the state? Yeah, higher taxes would be a little rough on the lower-income families, but then we'll just take a little extra from the crazy rich people who could wipe their butt in a wad of $100 bills and never notice the difference.
Obamacare has already resulted in over 6 million policy holders LOSING their existing health care coverage. These six million individuals/families did NOT receive their policies through their employer. The 6 million lost their policies because the new laws which make up Obamacare declared their existing policies illegal and invalid. So thus far, between 2 and 3 million have signed up for 'Obamacare' and 6 million have lost their existing insurance because of it. Some of those who have signed up for Obamacare, are of the 6 million who previously lost their insurance. They are now in all likelihood paying more for their new plan under Obamacare. Significantly more. And that is how the system has to have it. More people have to pay in to the system, for services they don't need, or can't qualify for, in order to pay for others who pay little/nothing who also participate in the system. The 'Old System' certainly had flaws, but on the whole rewarded those who could/would pay into it.
Some of those plans didn't cover things that people would never get. Some of those plans just wouldn't cover much of anything at all.
On the "things you never get" side, that's women paying for prostate cancer coverage and men paying for ovarian cancer coverage. Both things that are impossible for them to get respectively, but by spreading the cost of each out over the entire population, actually has the effect of reducing the financial risk (and therefore cost).
On the "not really cover anything" side, those weren't really health care plans. It has more in common with the car insurance scheme that I've known some people to employ. A friend would enroll in a plan, pay the initial premium in order to get legitimate insurance cards. He would then cancel the insurance plan, but if he were pulled over or had to apply for tab renewal, he still had a valid looking insurance card. Of course if he actually got into an accident, his "insurance plan" wasn't going to pay out. A lot of the illegal health insurance plans were about as effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obamacare has already resulted in over 6 million policy holders LOSING their existing health care coverage. These six million individuals/families did NOT receive their policies through their employer. The 6 million lost their policies because the new laws which make up Obamacare declared their existing policies illegal and invalid. So thus far, between 2 and 3 million have signed up for 'Obamacare' and 6 million have lost their existing insurance because of it. Some of those who have signed up for Obamacare, are of the 6 million who previously lost their insurance. They are now in all likelihood paying more for their new plan under Obamacare. Significantly more. And that is how the system has to have it. More people have to pay in to the system, for services they don't need, or can't qualify for, in order to pay for others who pay little/nothing who also participate in the system. The 'Old System' certainly had flaws, but on the whole rewarded those who could/would pay into it.
Do you have evidence that a single sentence of the screed above is actually true?
Because this thread has sure created a lot of anti-Obamacare screeds that are entirely inaccurate.
Obamacare has already resulted in over 6 million policy holders LOSING their existing health care coverage. These six million individuals/families did NOT receive their policies through their employer. The 6 million lost their policies because the new laws which make up Obamacare declared their existing policies illegal and invalid. So thus far, between 2 and 3 million have signed up for 'Obamacare' and 6 million have lost their existing insurance because of it. Some of those who have signed up for Obamacare, are of the 6 million who previously lost their insurance. They are now in all likelihood paying more for their new plan under Obamacare. Significantly more. And that is how the system has to have it. More people have to pay in to the system, for services they don't need, or can't qualify for, in order to pay for others who pay little/nothing who also participate in the system. The 'Old System' certainly had flaws, but on the whole rewarded those who could/would pay into it.
It also utterly screwed people with pre-existing conditions.
I really wish we'd just bit the bullet and go national health care, like Canada. But since that's actually Socialist, heads would explode...
There is no reason that having a national health service should automatically make a country socialist, any more than having a national crime-fighting service or a national fire service or a national army should. It's just about where you draw the lines on what you consider to be a basic human need that government (either local or nationa) should fulfil. For many people around the world and many countries, few if any of which would call themselves socialist (apart from Cuba, of course, which happily owns it), health service is definitely something that counts as a basic need that private corporations should have absolutely no hand in whatsoever.
The UK currently has the most right-wing government it's had in thirty years and despite a lukewarm government attempt to sabotage the NHS through constant interference and cost-cutting (although some cost savings are essential), the NHS is still here and still works just fine. It's certainly overly-simplistic to say that a British NHS that works means an American NHS would as well (the two countries, for all their similarities, have vastly different methods of funding public services), but the simple fact that many countries have public healthcare and don't 1) explode or 2) turn into Commie dictatorships indicates it is at least possible.
One question that comes to mind that if we accept that the American federal government couldn't find its backside if it used both hands and thus shouldn't be put in charge of looking after people's kidneys (although it appears to be fine ot let them look after enough nuclear weapons to burn off the surface of the planet down to the bedrock), is there no mechanism whereby the individual states could institute their own public healthcare systems? Presumably massive states with low populations couldn't make it work, but it looks from over here that places like California, New York and Texas certainly could without letting the federal government have to take oversight.
|
Obamacare has already resulted in over 6 million policy holders LOSING their existing health care coverage. These six million individuals/families did NOT receive their policies through their employer. The 6 million lost their policies because the new laws which make up Obamacare declared their existing policies illegal and invalid. So thus far, between 2 and 3 million have signed up for 'Obamacare' and 6 million have lost their existing insurance because of it. Some of those who have signed up for Obamacare, are of the 6 million who previously lost their insurance. They are now in all likelihood paying more for their new plan under Obamacare. Significantly more. And that is how the system has to have it. More people have to pay in to the system, for services they don't need, or can't qualify for, in order to pay for others who pay little/nothing who also participate in the system. The 'Old System' certainly had flaws, but on the whole rewarded those who could/would pay into it.It also utterly screwed people with pre-existing conditions.
I really wish we'd just bit the bullet and go national health care, like Canada. But since that's actually Socialist, heads would explode...
Given the cluster *&^% that is obamacare i wonder if the POINT is to show how screwed up this is and make national taxpayer funded healthcare the "better alternative" after going back is not an option.
|
|
Obamacare has already resulted in over 6 million policy holders LOSING their existing health care coverage. These six million individuals/families did NOT receive their policies through their employer. The 6 million lost their policies because the new laws which make up Obamacare declared their existing policies illegal and invalid. So thus far, between 2 and 3 million have signed up for 'Obamacare' and 6 million have lost their existing insurance because of it. Some of those who have signed up for Obamacare, are of the 6 million who previously lost their insurance. They are now in all likelihood paying more for their new plan under Obamacare. Significantly more. And that is how the system has to have it. More people have to pay in to the system, for services they don't need, or can't qualify for, in order to pay for others who pay little/nothing who also participate in the system. The 'Old System' certainly had flaws, but on the whole rewarded those who could/would pay into it.Some of those plans didn't cover things that people would never get. Some of those plans just wouldn't cover much of anything at all.
On the "things you never get" side, that's women paying for prostate cancer coverage and men paying for ovarian cancer coverage. Both things that are impossible for them to get respectively, but by spreading the cost of each out over the entire population, actually has the effect of reducing the financial risk (and therefore cost).
On the "not really cover anything" side, those weren't really health care plans. It has more in common with the car insurance scheme that I've known some people to employ. A friend would enroll in a plan, pay the initial premium in order to get legitimate insurance cards. He would then cancel the insurance plan, but if he were pulled over or had to apply for tab renewal, he still had a valid looking insurance card. Of course if he actually got into an accident, his "insurance plan" wasn't going to pay out. A lot of the...
Forcing all americans to buy a car would bring the price down im sure, even if they don't want one. ACA part 2 the affordable car act. If you cannot afford a car too &^%$ing bad, car or fine. and the fine will be more than the car after a few years so you might as well......
|
|
So wouldn't it be better to just raise taxes a little and have everyone be covered by the state? Yeah, higher taxes would be a little rough on the lower-income families, but then we'll just take a little extra from the crazy rich people who could wipe their butt in a wad of $100 bills and never notice the difference.
If i mug you and give it to charity is it less theft?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing all americans to buy a car would bring the price down im sure, even if they don't want one. ACA part 2 the affordable car act. If you cannot afford a car too &^%$ing bad, car or fine. and the fine will be more than the car after a few years so you might as well......
No the cogent analogy would be forcing everyone who owns a car to buy CAR insurance.
Which we do.
No the cogent analogy would be forcing everyone who owns a car to buy CAR insurance.
Which we do.
No, it's not a cognet anaolgy.
States force you to buy car insurance IF YOU OWN A CAR.
If you don't own a car, you don't buy car insurance.
You're well on your way to winning a seat in Congress, meatrace.
|
|
No the cogent analogy would be forcing everyone who owns a car to buy CAR insurance.
Which we do.No, it's not a cognet anaolgy.
States force you to buy car insurance IF YOU OWN A CAR.
If you don't own a car, you don't buy car insurance.You're well on your way to winning a seat in Congress, meatrace.
Better example would be to force you to get auto insurance even if you do not have or want a car. Insurance is a choice here, you can choose not to drive. Health care there is no choice.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hurray for socialism...Yeah. Free market really doesn't apply when you have a hunk of metal piercing your eyeball or a searing pain in your gut.
Before companies invented health care as a benefit (to combat the inability to attract workers with higher wages due to a wage freeze during the Depression), and the government got involved, the free market actually worked pretty well for health care.
People use the term "free market" to mean whatever system we have here (which is capitalism, defined, by the guy who made up the term, as a collusion between government and business to screw people). The guy that invented the term knew capitalism wasn't a "free market". He probably wouldn't have had much of an issue with a free market, actually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better example would be to force you to get auto insurance even if you do not have or want a car. Insurance is a choice here, you can choose not to drive. Health care there is no choice.
No the cogent analogy would be forcing everyone who owns a car to buy CAR insurance.
Which we do.No, it's not a cognet anaolgy.
States force you to buy car insurance IF YOU OWN A CAR.
If you don't own a car, you don't buy car insurance.You're well on your way to winning a seat in Congress, meatrace.
No, that isn't a better example. Here's why...
What is car insurance for? It's for when you have a car accident. It's not possible to have a car accident, unless there is a car involved. Since every car owner is required to have insurance, in theory all car owners who follow the law will have insurance that can cover what happens in an accident.
Why your analogy breaks down is that it isn't possible for anyone to choose to not have health problems. You have a physical body, it will have problems. Since all citizens of the US have a physical body which can have accidents (illness or injury), in this analogy, all citizens DO have cars and thus are required to have insurance for them.
It should be noted, that people who exist entirely outside of the health care system are exempted, such as people who don't go to doctors for religious reasons. They literally never go to the doctor, so they aren't required to obtain health insurance.
Invent your own religion and convince the government you will never go see a doctor ever and you could be granted an exemption as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is with the "taxes are theft" thing?
theft |θɛft|
noun [ mass noun ]
the action or crime of stealing: he was convicted of theft
steal |stiːl|
verb ( past stole |stəʊl|; past participle stolen |ˈstəʊlən| )
1 [ with obj. ] take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: thieves stole her bicycle
Guess what? The state has legal right to collect taxes. There is no theft involved.
"Without permission"...
... or legal right. You can argue almost anything if you quote selectively :)
So it's theft if it meets either of the two criteria, per the "or" you emphasized.
If, using pseudocode, you view it as
without (permission or legal right)
you only need to satisify one of the two conditions.
But yeah, I concede you could argue for interpreting it either way. The "common sense" reading to me though would be you only need one or the other in order for officials to, for example, commandeer vehicles or equipment in emergencies.
For me it comes down to where the line is drawn with taxes. At some point, there has to be taxation in order to fund things at a state level. The main question is what the state should be funding. I tend to come down on "anything to do with keeping the people safe" - so police, fire, ambulance, the military, and health services become the responsibility of society as a whole rather than the individual, because everyone should receive those services whether they personally can afford them or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No the cogent analogy would be forcing everyone who owns a car to buy CAR insurance.
Which we do.No, it's not a cognet anaolgy.
States force you to buy car insurance IF YOU OWN A CAR.
If you don't own a car, you don't buy car insurance.You're well on your way to winning a seat in Congress, meatrace.
Yes, that's what I said. If you own a car you need to buy insurance for it.
If you have a BODY you have to get insurance for it.
So it's theft if it meets either of the two criteria, per the "or" you emphasized.
You're free to go live somewhere with no government and thus no taxes.
I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Without permission"...
There are compromises to be made to live in a civilized society. Some of that means rules that the majority agree to, which a minority disagree with.
Taxes aren't stealing. They're your civic duty for participating and being a member of this society. If you want to relinquish your civic obligations, there are ways to do that. You are also free to convince people of your "truth" and try and get the system changed.
Stop claiming that taxes are stealing though. It sounds like the complaints of a petulant child.
I really wish we could have a serious discussion about reform around here. Ya know, how to FIX the system, as opposed to having a bunch of people claiming that taxes are theft, all government is tyranny, and being put in the unenviable position of tacitly defending the status quo.
Forcing all americans to buy a car would bring the price down im sure, even if they don't want one. ACA part 2 the affordable car act. If you cannot afford a car too &^%$ing bad, car or fine. and the fine will be more than the car after a few years so you might as well......No the cogent analogy would be forcing everyone who owns a car to buy CAR insurance.
Which we do.
You don't need car insurance in NH. Live free or die!
Also, if you see a multi-colored Towncar barrelling down the road, smoke pouring out of the windows, with a Teamsters sticker on the windshield, you might want to get out of the way.
Vive le Galt!
|
|
Better example would be to force you to get auto insurance even if you do not have or want a car. Insurance is a choice here, you can choose not to drive. Health care there is no choice.
No the cogent analogy would be forcing everyone who owns a car to buy CAR insurance.
Which we do.No, it's not a cognet anaolgy.
States force you to buy car insurance IF YOU OWN A CAR.
If you don't own a car, you don't buy car insurance.You're well on your way to winning a seat in Congress, meatrace.
No, that isn't a better example. Here's why...
What is car insurance for? It's for when you have a car accident. It's not possible to have a car accident, unless there is a car involved. Since every car owner is required to have insurance, in theory all car owners who follow the law will have insurance that can cover what happens in an accident.
Why your analogy breaks down is that it isn't possible for anyone to choose to not have health problems. You have a physical body, it will have problems. Since all citizens of the US have a physical body which can have accidents (illness or injury), in this analogy, all citizens DO have cars and thus are required to have insurance for them.
It should be noted, that people who exist entirely outside of the health care system are exempted, such as people who don't go to doctors for religious reasons. They literally never go to the doctor, so they aren't required to obtain health insurance.
Invent your own religion and convince the government you will never go see a doctor ever and you could be granted an exemption as well.
I cannot get ovarian cancer nor have a child, yet i am charged as though i can to subsidize others. As fair as making non-drivers pay into auto insurance to keep my rates low is it not?
|
|
"Without permission"...There are compromises to be made to live in a civilized society. Some of that means rules that the majority agree to, which a minority disagree with.
Taxes aren't stealing. They're your civic duty for participating and being a member of this society. If you want to relinquish your civic obligations, there are ways to do that. You are also free to convince people of your "truth" and try and get the system changed.
Stop claiming that taxes are stealing though. It sounds like the complaints of a petulant child.
Would you oppose compulsory military service for all? Civic duty and all....
And millions of women can't get prostate cancer and yet their premiums help pay for your healthcare should you get it, because that's exactly how insurance does and has always worked. All these people up in arms about the government making you pay to offset others' problems, when that's precisely what the insurance industry does with your cash.
|
|
And millions of women can't get prostate cancer and yet their premiums help pay for your healthcare should you get it, because that's exactly how insurance does and has always worked. All these people up in arms about the government making you pay to offset others' problems, when that's precisely what the insurance industry does with your cash.
You say that as though i am in favor of the insurance industry existing. And before this mess it was a CHOICE to be part of that or not
I just have no idea how your mind works, Andrew R.
You're not in favor of the insurance industry existing? Isn't that rather anti-free market?
I think the point the rest of us are making is that, yes, compulsory insurance is a sack of crap for everyone...but only because nationalized healthcare is simpler, cheaper, and more effective than private solutions to healthcare.
Frankly, I'm against cancer existing, or car accidents, but I can't wish them away with fairy dust.
EDIT: And for the record, it's STILL a choice whether you wish to be part of it or not, you just get a penalty if you don't. Similarly, you can drive without being licensed if that is your choice, but you might be penalized. Etc etc ad nauseum.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And millions of women can't get prostate cancer and yet their premiums help pay for your healthcare should you get it, because that's exactly how insurance does and has always worked. All these people up in arms about the government making you pay to offset others' problems, when that's precisely what the insurance industry does with your cash.
I think what he is objecting to is having to pay for parts of a policy he didn't have to before. Having to pay extra monthly to cover pap smears and mammograms, which he will never get, because all health plans have to COVER them, regardless of need, is like having to get motorcycle coverage with your auto insurance even though you don't own a motorcycle.
And, no, before Obamacare, insurance companies were not selling pap smear and mammogram add-ons to men, the plans were tailored to individuals. They weren't selling prostate exam co-pay coverage to women, they weren't making single, childless people pay for pediatrician plans, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just have no idea how your mind works, Andrew R.
You're not in favor of the insurance industry existing? Isn't that rather anti-free market?I think the point the rest of us are making is that, yes, compulsory insurance is a sack of crap for everyone...but only because nationalized healthcare is simpler, cheaper, and more effective than private solutions to healthcare.
Frankly, I'm against cancer existing, or car accidents, but I can't wish them away with fairy dust.
EDIT: And for the record, it's STILL a choice whether you wish to be part of it or not, you just get a penalty if you don't. Similarly, you can drive without being licensed if that is your choice, but you might be penalized. Etc etc ad nauseum.
Im starting to wonder if national socialist healthcare is not the lesser evil here. Real free market is i buy what i want, the insurance industry borked that by inflating prices hand in hand with gov. medicare/aid
That is like saying following the law and paying taxes are optional because you could just die in jail. A choice that end with OR ELSE is not a choice. I don't like having a gun to my head, that is not how free citizens live.
|
|
i believe in minimal taxation for the few things the governments are actually good at, maintaining borders and roads and very little else. I get charged to call an ambulance, utilities come from private companies in many areas.Gonna test your own food for salmonella, eh?
Sort of, im getting things in order to provide nearly all of my own food and the rest comming from local farmers i know. As i said though, gov. should do little else, not nothing else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*shrug*
Sorry, I just don't get the "taxes are tyranny" mindset.
I cannot get ovarian cancer nor have a child, yet i am charged as though i can to subsidize others. As fair as making non-drivers pay into auto insurance to keep my rates low is it not?
And others are charged for prostate cancer, even though they can't get it, to help pay for yours should you get it.
That's is how insurance works. As in, that is the definition of insurance. Seriously, if that is your problem, you don't have an issue with the ACA, you have an issue with the concept of insurance.
The idea behind insurance is to spread the risk more evenly so that should something catastrophic happen, the individual doesn't pay the cost. This is exceptionally important with health care, because having something like cancer can make it very difficult to work and pay for your own health care.
You aren't advocating against Obamacare. You are advocating against the concept of insurance.
Property is theft!
Down with Obamacare!
For free, quality health care for all!
Vive le Galt!
I think what he is objecting to is having to pay for parts of a policy he didn't have to before. Having to pay extra monthly to cover pap smears and mammograms, which he will never get, because all health plans have to COVER them, regardless of need, is like having to get motorcycle coverage with your auto insurance even though you don't own a motorcycle.
And, no, before Obamacare, insurance companies were not selling pap smear and mammogram add-ons to men, the plans were tailored to individuals. They weren't selling prostate exam co-pay coverage to women, they weren't making single, childless people pay for pediatrician plans, etc.
You misunderstand my point. Insurance companies charge you a rate based on the market value of healthcare and the actuarial value of your healthcare, i.e. a risk premium. When you pay your premium, the money doesn't go into a sequestered account to be used only for your healthcare, it goes into a giant pile (into which healthcare CEOs do swan dives) which gets doled out when claims are made.
It's just moving money around. The insurance company doesn't care if your risk is ovarian cancer or lung cancer if the risk has the same value. People who are a low risk will ALWAYS pay more than the actuarial value of their insurance, and people who are a high risk (or have a pre-existing condition) will ALWAYS pay less than the actuarial value of their insurance. If you are healthy and have insurance, you are de facto, subsidizing someone's healthcare who is unhealthy. Usually the elderly, who account for the vast majority of medical spending in the US.
Similarly, if you pay for car insurance and never get in an accident even once, you're being fleeced, and if you have a policy for one month and get in a head-on collision, you're getting a steal.
That is like saying following the law and paying taxes are optional because you could just die in jail. A choice that end with OR ELSE is not a choice. I don't like having a gun to my head, that is not how free citizens live.
Emphasis mine.
I'd like you to re-examine your statement while thinking about whether receiving healthcare is a choice for someone with a headwound.|
|
I think what he is objecting to is having to pay for parts of a policy he didn't have to before. Having to pay extra monthly to cover pap smears and mammograms, which he will never get, because all health plans have to COVER them, regardless of need, is like having to get motorcycle coverage with your auto insurance even though you don't own a motorcycle.
And, no, before Obamacare, insurance companies were not selling pap smear and mammogram add-ons to men, the plans were tailored to individuals. They weren't selling prostate exam co-pay coverage to women, they weren't making single, childless people pay for pediatrician plans, etc.
You misunderstand my point. Insurance companies charge you a rate based on the market value of healthcare and the actuarial value of your healthcare, i.e. a risk premium. When you pay your premium, the money doesn't go into a sequestered account to be used only for your healthcare, it goes into a giant pile (into which healthcare CEOs do swan dives) which gets doled out when claims are made.
It's just moving money around. The insurance company doesn't care if your risk is ovarian cancer or lung cancer if the risk has the same value. People who are a low risk will ALWAYS pay more than the actuarial value of their insurance, and people who are a high risk (or have a pre-existing condition) will ALWAYS pay less than the actuarial value of their insurance. If you are healthy and have insurance, you are de facto, subsidizing someone's healthcare who is unhealthy. Usually the elderly, who account for the vast majority of medical spending in the US.
Similarly, if you pay for car insurance and never get in an accident even once, you're being fleeced, and if you have a policy for one month and get in a head-on collision, you're getting a steal.
I did miss a bit of that point, sorry for being ACA specific.
Would you oppose compulsory military service for all? Civic duty and all...."Without permission"...There are compromises to be made to live in a civilized society. Some of that means rules that the majority agree to, which a minority disagree with.
Taxes aren't stealing. They're your civic duty for participating and being a member of this society. If you want to relinquish your civic obligations, there are ways to do that. You are also free to convince people of your "truth" and try and get the system changed.
Stop claiming that taxes are stealing though. It sounds like the complaints of a petulant child.
I would oppose it. I think it would be largely pointless and a waste of money. Military spending doesn't really produce much. It employs people, but the results of their employment don't really (other than the inherent nature of being employed) doesn't really benefit the economy or society.
I'd rather provide free education to doctors, then mandate that they work in under served areas for a set number of years. Same with teachers, free education, but your place of employment is chosen for you for the first 3-4 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One more little pedantic point I'd like to pull out of your post, Andrew R, and that's "free citizen." You can be free, OR you can be a citizen. Being a citizen means being part of civilization, the privilege of which is offset by duties both public and private, monetary and non-monetary.
I would oppose it. I think it would be largely pointless and a waste of money. Military spending doesn't really produce much. It employs people, but the results of their employment don't really (other than the inherent nature of being employed) doesn't really benefit the economy or society.
I'd rather provide free education to doctors, then mandate that they work in under served areas for a set number of years. Same with teachers, free education, but your place of employment is chosen for you for the first 3-4 years.
I had what I thought was a really awesome idea maybe 5 years ago: policeman draft.
Basically, if you live in a city you sign up for a draft and a certain percentage of the police force is made up of people drafted for service. It would do two things I think which would be good. 1-enhance police-community relations. Regular people having to do a cop's job, and getting to know some people on the force, and vice versa. 2-It would regulate community mores as it pertains to arbitrary enforcement of laws. There's always a lot of leeway for individual officers to let people off the hook for minor infractions, and I think people who are on the job 24/7 end up harder and less lenient than others. If the community at large is basically OK with pot as a drug, regardless of its legality, "drafted" police are more likely to look the other way and there would be less arrests for possession, etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One more little pedantic point I'd like to pull out of your post, Andrew R, and that's "free citizen." You can be free, OR you can be a citizen. Being a citizen means being part of civilization, the privilege of which is offset by duties both public and private, monetary and non-monetary.
Our founders disagree. subjects give of themselves for others, for the state (crown), a free american citizen was meant to be able to do for himself.