We are the enemy.

[Bind]

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/02/faa_drones.html

“the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system at six test ranges.”

We are the enemy.

[1715166696]

1715166696

[1715166696]

1715166696

[1715166696]

1715166696

[1715166696]

1715166696

[1715166696]

1715166696

[ineededausername]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Go ahead, try to get Ron Paul elected or start a petition... and watch it fail.  

I've come to realize that there's no point in talking about politics, because one will never succeed against the state.  

[cbeast]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Go ahead, try to get Ron Paul elected or start a petition... and watch it fail.  

I've come to realize that there's no point in talking about politics, because one will never succeed against the state.  

That's because the bankers always support the stronger state. States do fall, but one will never succeed against the banks.

[legitnick]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Go ahead, try to get Ron Paul elected or start a petition... and watch it fail. 

I've come to realize that there's no point in talking about politics, because one will never succeed against the state. 

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2011/08/21/if-i-were-president

[Hawker]

Honestly I'm not seeing the problem here.  Is a bomber flown by remote control really different from one flown by a pilot? 

[realnowhereman]

Honestly I'm not seeing the problem here.  Is a bomber flown by remote control really different from one flown by a pilot? 

Not really I suppose.

The only thing I can think of is that the ethics of the soldier are no longer a factor. The evil leader can say "shoot this child" to a robot and it will happen. With a soldier, they need the soldier to be evil too.

History shows that that isn't as hard as you'd have hoped, so I don't suppose it makes much difference.

[Bind]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Go ahead, try to get Ron Paul elected or start a petition... and watch it fail.  

I've come to realize that there's no point in talking about politics, because one will never succeed against the state.  

It's education and rage. It is unlawful for the military to operate domestically, even by proxy.  A population aware of the wrong their government is doing is the first step in fixing it. The people have the power, ability, and responsibility to be informed and participate in their government, else others with an agenda will take it over, which has ocurred over the last 100 years. More people should be outraged.

Ron Paul is not the solution, but he is our best choice if we wish to return to some semblance of a Constitutional Republic and get away from this fascist government. I have many issues with Ron Paul, but who else are we going to elect? Look at the choices and their backgrounds and controllers. In the end, both parties are identical, while feeding us minor issues to keep us arguing amongst ourselves instead of coming together at one people against the wrongs in our system. Personally, I believe Ron paul to be a partially controlled opposition to the people, instead of a fully controlled opposition to the people, placed and kept there as an emergency mechanism so the insidious influences dont lose everything all at once, as would happen if the people truly woke up, revolted and/or elected someone truly for the people.

If you are a student of true world history, you would know that the people always eventaully win against the state. Throughout history all civilizations have fallen. Ours has not ... yet. Throughout history all tyrannical and oppressive leaders and regimes have fallen when they went to far and the people revolted or they were invaded. The current system of freedom-based governemnt is not very old in comparison. the ruling elites blinked and gave in to the people when they became unhappy and revolted to give us this freedom, while others fought hard for it. Most recently, they learned to use psychology to make the people think they are happy to keep control of their governments and their wealth and power. This too will change. We may not see it in our lifetime, but it will happen, and we have to set an example for our descendents to follow. The people will always have the power, but there will be many casualties.

Honestly I'm not seeing the problem here.  Is a bomber flown by remote control really different from one flown by a pilot?  

The problem is that they are using the military to spy on their own people, unlawfully operating domestically.

[Kluge]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Go ahead, try to get Ron Paul elected or start a petition... and watch it fail. 

I've come to realize that there's no point in talking about politics, because one will never succeed against the state. 

Maybe not politically, but the more laws governments enforce with less funding, the easier it is to just ignore the government altogether. Forced gov't regulations -> demand for unregulated (cheaper) goods. Sin taxes on cigarettes are a great example. The government has essentially forced all legal producers/resellers of cigarettes to sell @ >3x the price they ought to be. Some US states still permit people to "lease" cigarette-rolling machines from smoke shops. Usually comes to half-price, depending on how "pipe tobacco" is taxed. Leasing the machine amounts to about half the total production cost. Roll them at home, and it's ~1/4 the price of pre-fab legally-sold cigarettes in US states, maybe 1/10 or so the price in particularly obnoxious anti-cigarette areas like NYC. That fraction of the price still includes pipe tobacco tax. Remove that, and there's even greater profit potential. Meanwhile, most police officers are human enough to realize how asinine it is to punish people selling "illegal" cigarettes, and don't charge (instead telling the offender to just not do that around here) assuming it's not connected to organized crime. Selling alcohol in areas like NYC on the street isn't too uncommon, either.

Point I'm getting at -- the more obnoxious government is, the less likely it is for people to operate legally, and the more likely it is to create black markets. At that point, when regulations are so obstructive as to make illegal production preferable, government loses all control over the market, loses tax revenues on production/resale, has to beef up the LEO budget for enforcement, and disenfranchises its citizens. Long-term, this is great for civil liberties, so long as government is unable to secure adequate funding to practically enforce all its law. As government increasingly barks about criminalizing economic ventures, anarchy becomes more and more widespread.

Here're a couple well-fitting examples, I believe. In a city I previously lived in, all plumbing work had to be done by a "master plumber." I was going to hire a plumber to install a toilet. After companies told me the price increase due to needing a "master plumber," I decided just to install the toilet myself. Had the city just insisted all plumbing work had to be done by a plumber, I would've just hired a plumber - but they went too far, and made it too expensive for me to prefer following the law. Another example -- a state I previously lived in insisted all asbestos had to be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement company, and sent to a special very-expensive dump. That cost many thousands, so I instead removed the asbestos tile myself - no mask - drove all the asbestos tiling to another state ~6h away where I had a trash container, and dumped it in there. Cigarettes, of course, I roll myself using "pipe tobacco." There are many ways to get around governments which make living too burdensome, and as those burdens increase, more and more people will simply ignore law.

[Hawker]

kluge - cigarette smokers get cancer and come to hospitals for treatment.  That has to be paid for.  In the UK, smokers actually make a small profit for the NHS because they generate slightly more revenue than they consume in cancer treatments.  I assume that's the kind of tax you are talking about?

As a smoker, the risk of cancer doesn't scare you but, seriously, you messed about with asbestos?  No matter how much money you saved, that's not a good idea. 

[Kluge]

kluge - cigarette smokers get cancer and come to hospitals for treatment.  That has to be paid for.  In the UK, smokers actually make a small profit for the NHS because they generate slightly more revenue than they consume in cancer treatments.  I assume that's the kind of tax you are talking about?

As a smoker, the risk of cancer doesn't scare you but, seriously, you messed about with asbestos?  No matter how much money you saved, that's not a good idea. 

I was not willing to pay thousands to follow government law on asbestos. The lack of respirator was stupid laziness on my part. ETA fwiw: I wouldn't have removed it at all if I weren't legally required to do so prior to selling the house.

Cigarette smokers have to have their illnesses treated using government money when government involves itself with paying for health treatment. I pay for my own healthcare, so justifying charging me 4x or more the cost of production in various taxes and regulations on producers is unfounded.

[Hawker]

kluge - cigarette smokers get cancer and come to hospitals for treatment.  That has to be paid for.  In the UK, smokers actually make a small profit for the NHS because they generate slightly more revenue than they consume in cancer treatments.  I assume that's the kind of tax you are talking about?

As a smoker, the risk of cancer doesn't scare you but, seriously, you messed about with asbestos?  No matter how much money you saved, that's not a good idea.  

I was not willing to pay thousands to follow government law on asbestos. The lack of respirator was stupid laziness on my part. ETA fwiw: I wouldn't have removed it at all if I weren't legally required to do so prior to selling the house.

Cigarette smokers have to have their illnesses treated using government money when government involves itself with paying for health treatment. I pay for my own healthcare, so justifying charging me 4x or more the cost of production in various taxes and regulations on producers is unfounded.

If you have private insurance and if your insurance covers you for asbestosis and for lung cancer, great.  We are all happy for you.  But lots of people don't.  We still have to provide them with health care.  So a tax is justified.

[Kluge]

kluge - cigarette smokers get cancer and come to hospitals for treatment.  That has to be paid for.  In the UK, smokers actually make a small profit for the NHS because they generate slightly more revenue than they consume in cancer treatments.  I assume that's the kind of tax you are talking about?

As a smoker, the risk of cancer doesn't scare you but, seriously, you messed about with asbestos?  No matter how much money you saved, that's not a good idea. 

I was not willing to pay thousands to follow government law on asbestos. The lack of respirator was stupid laziness on my part. ETA fwiw: I wouldn't have removed it at all if I weren't legally required to do so prior to selling the house.

Cigarette smokers have to have their illnesses treated using government money when government involves itself with paying for health treatment. I pay for my own healthcare, so justifying charging me 4x or more the cost of production in various taxes and regulations on producers is unfounded.

If you have private insurance and if your insurance covers you for asbestosis and for lung cancer, great.  We are all happy for you.  But lots of people don't.  We still have to provide them with health care.  So a tax is justified.

It's unfair to tax all cigarettes (I'm supposed to pay that tax AND others' medical expenses while paying for my own family's insurance while I haven't been above the USG's income poverty line since my first job), and I will continue to evade those taxes. As those taxes increase - as I said earlier, more and more people will find following government regulation more burdensome than evading it, and for a government to recoup the taxes being "stolen" from them, they'll need to spend more cracking down on illegalities (which has proven rather ineffective in the USG's "War on Drugs"), likely negating tax revenues from the increased taxation/regulation.

The health care still must be paid for and there is no reason anyone other than smokers should pay it.  I appreciate you don't like paying for it but it does have to be paid for. 

Then to the USG and all governments seeking to collect money in the manner of organized criminals -- good luck, godspeed, and may China continue to finance. (didn't create a new post so as to not continue derailing this thread)

[Hawker]

The health care still must be paid for and there is no reason anyone other than smokers should pay it.  I appreciate you don't like paying for it but it does have to be paid for. 

[Hawker]

The health care still must be paid

I disagree that government should pay for this. I DO NOT want to pay for other people's poor health choices. Let them pay themselves (or insure themselves) and if they don't it's their life that ends.

What you need to do is get a law forbidding the government from paying for healthcare passed.

Good luck.

[cbeast]

That will never pass (especially in a socialistic country I live in).

I stated what I would like to see happen, not what I am going to make happen. In reality I will do nothing and pay my taxes as a good law abiding citizen. I just do not agree with the law that I do follow.

I agree. If (God forbid) you were ever to procreate and your child caused my child to get sick, I would hold you financially liable for the disease treatment, loss of wages, education time, and pain and suffering. I would sue you for everything you have.

[ineededausername]

That will never pass (especially in a socialistic country I live in).

I stated what I would like to see happen, not what I am going to make happen. In reality I will do nothing and pay my taxes as a good law abiding citizen. I just do not agree with the law that I do follow.

Yet the only thing that truly matters is reality, not the ideal world in your mind. 

[Bind]

That will never pass (especially in a socialistic country I live in).

I stated what I would like to see happen, not what I am going to make happen. In reality I will do nothing and pay my taxes as a good law abiding citizen. I just do not agree with the law that I do follow.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

or as a paraphrased ideal of that...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "

Edmund Burke 1770

[Hawker]

That will never pass (especially in a socialistic country I live in).

I stated what I would like to see happen, not what I am going to make happen. In reality I will do nothing and pay my taxes as a good law abiding citizen. I just do not agree with the law that I do follow.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

or as a paraphrased ideal of that...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "

Edmund Burke 1770

People who try to stop the state managing heath care costs are the bad guys.  Some things are best done collectively.

[Bind]

That will never pass (especially in a socialistic country I live in).

I stated what I would like to see happen, not what I am going to make happen. In reality I will do nothing and pay my taxes as a good law abiding citizen. I just do not agree with the law that I do follow.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

or as a paraphrased ideal of that...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "

Edmund Burke 1770

People who try to stop the state managing heath care costs are the bad guys.  Some things are best done collectively.

the only reason the state seems to need to control health care costs is becasue of the state of the manufacturing, industry, economy, and unemployment they intentionally killed TO SPECIFICALLY ALLOW THOSE CONTROL MECHANISMS TO COME IN.

If anything, the prices for everything should be decreasing as technology advances manufacturing, communications, industry, and services. The ones you defend are killing you and you dont even realize it.

I will admit we need to take care of the people in need... for now, but we must turn around this control structure and take control of our government and economy, and start farming and manufacturing again. Kill the trade treaties we ratified allowing corporations to import everything made by people earning a bowl of rice and a poke in the eye instead of sane wages, put high tarrifs on imports, high taxes on corporations, then lower them as they create jobs. Another answer is banking reform. In addition to the robber barons going overseas and unfettered importation, the money trusts and money changers (central banking system) are screwing us as well, and is a prime cause of our indebtedness.

People making a good living, living responsibly, and saving can take care of their own medical needs.

[Hawker]

Everyone pays taxes.

Everyone gets sick and all level of society get much the same illnesses.

Paying for healthcare through the tax system stops price gouging of the sick, it stops money being wasted on marketing and it stops insurance companies dumping hard cases through rescission.

If you look at the numbers, systems like the NHS in the UK are cheap to run yet offer better results.  

I can't see why anyone would want to pay more and get worse results, so I assume that people who advocate against state provision have either a vested interested in high drug prices or are freeloaders who will present themselves for treatment when their luck runs out.

[Bind]

Everyone pays taxes.

Everyone gets sick and all level of society get much the same illnesses.

Paying for healthcare through the tax system stops price gouging of the sick, it stops money being wasted on marketing and it stops insurance companies dumping hard cases through rescission.

If you look at the numbers, systems like the NHS in the UK are cheap to run yet offer better results.  

I can't see why anyone would want to pay more and get worse results, so I assume that people who advocate against state provision have either a vested interested in high drug prices or are freeloaders who will present themselves for treatment when their luck runs out.

...or they simply demand their freedom and rights, no threats of force or prinson at the point of a gun for simply breathing, are ready, willing, and able to take care of themselves and their families, teach their families the importance of self reliance, hard work, and saving and preparation, unwilling to bow to anyone who makes the presumption of authority over them, and refuses to reliquish said because a couple fellow human beings decided to steal from them to help somone else, then called it some arbitrary thing like a "law", to benefit others who think this world owes them a free ride because they parents decided to have sex and not teach the product thereof the important things in life.

[Hawker]

Everyone pays taxes.

Everyone gets sick and all level of society get much the same illnesses.

Paying for healthcare through the tax system stops price gouging of the sick, it stops money being wasted on marketing and it stops insurance companies dumping hard cases through rescission.

If you look at the numbers, systems like the NHS in the UK are cheap to run yet offer better results.  

I can't see why anyone would want to pay more and get worse results, so I assume that people who advocate against state provision have either a vested interested in high drug prices or are freeloaders who will present themselves for treatment when their luck runs out.

...or they simply demand their freedom and rights, no threats of force or prinson at the point of a gun for simply breathing, are ready, willing, and able to take care of themselves and their families, teach their families the importance of self reliance, hard work, and saving and preparation, unwilling to bow to anyone who makes the presumption of authority over them, and refuses to reliquish said because a couple fellow human beings decided to steal from them to help somone else, then called it some arbitrary thing like a "law", to benefit others who think this world owes them a free ride because they parents decided to have sex and not teach the product thereof the important things in life.

That's just verbiage.  The fact is that everyone gets sick, it has to be paid for and taxation is the most efficient way to pay for it.  "Liberty" does not mean refusing to pay your share and then showing up at the hospital with a sick baby asking for health care.  That's freeloading.

[Bind]

Everyone pays taxes.

Everyone gets sick and all level of society get much the same illnesses.

Paying for healthcare through the tax system stops price gouging of the sick, it stops money being wasted on marketing and it stops insurance companies dumping hard cases through rescission.

If you look at the numbers, systems like the NHS in the UK are cheap to run yet offer better results.  

I can't see why anyone would want to pay more and get worse results, so I assume that people who advocate against state provision have either a vested interested in high drug prices or are freeloaders who will present themselves for treatment when their luck runs out.

...or they simply demand their freedom and rights, no threats of force or prinson at the point of a gun for simply breathing, are ready, willing, and able to take care of themselves and their families, teach their families the importance of self reliance, hard work, and saving and preparation, unwilling to bow to anyone who makes the presumption of authority over them, and refuses to reliquish said because a couple fellow human beings decided to steal from them to help somone else, then called it some arbitrary thing like a "law", to benefit others who think this world owes them a free ride because they parents decided to have sex and not teach the product thereof the important things in life.

That's just verbiage.  The fact is that everyone gets sick, it has to be paid for and taxation is the most efficient way to pay for it.  "Liberty" does not mean refusing to pay your share and then showing up at the hospital with a sick baby asking for health care.  That's freeloading.

My share is already paid for privately, by me and my family.

Your share, wanting to steal my money, is not my share. You just want to rename or rebrand it as "my share" to make you feel better about basic robbery/theft.

The one freeloading is you or anyone else asking for free health care, expecting anyone other than themselves to pay for it.

My share does not include you or anyone else unless I voluntarily donate it of my own free will.

Sure you can take it by force, but that just makes it simple theft/robbery that's been legalised.

It would be a different story if I chose to use those services I am paying for as in community infrastructure we pay for - electric, water, sewage, roads, by engaging in contracts to use those services I pay the bills monthly for, but also paying more than my share by funding those using them for free.

[westkybitcoins]

That will never pass (especially in a socialistic country I live in).

I stated what I would like to see happen, not what I am going to make happen. In reality I will do nothing and pay my taxes as a good law abiding citizen. I just do not agree with the law that I do follow.

Yet the only thing that truly matters is reality, not the ideal world in your mind. 

This isn't entirely true.

Ignoring reality as if it isn't real is clearly bad, but our perceptions of how things ought to be is how the world changes, whether small ("Maybe I shouldn't drop this litter here, even if everyone else is going to") or large ("Hey, wouldn't it be cool if a *machine* could copy books?") Spread your ideal to others, and the changes become significant.

Given enough time, societal acceptance, and enthusiasm, our perceptions and imaginations become reality (within physical limits, of course.)

That said, I agree with you--I think the idea of modern Western societies shunning taxes and government control is an ideal that's not going to be embraced anytime soon. Not that it means we should cheerfully accept and advocate for such things....

[westkybitcoins]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Opt out. If you truly don't believe in the system you are a part of, stop paying for it.

+1

And note that this opting out doesn't have to be a total thing, or all at once, or even illegal.

Find your greatest point of disagreement with the system, and figure out a way to reduce or eliminate your monetary and/or social contributions to it, in proportion to your priorities; the legality of the chosen method is up to you.

In due time, continue for each next-greater point of disagreement until you reach a balance between your conscience, your safety, your desired standard of living, etc.

Simply doing this would be enough for most people.

[Hawker]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Opt out. If you truly don't believe in the system you are a part of, stop paying for it.

+1

And note that this opting out doesn't have to be a total thing, or all at once, or even illegal.

Find your greatest point of disagreement with the system, and figure out a way to reduce or eliminate your monetary and/or social contributions to it, in proportion to your priorities; the legality of the chosen method is up to you.

In due time, continue for each next-greater point of disagreement until you reach a balance between your conscience, your safety, your desired standard of living, etc.

Simply doing this would be enough for most people.

"Opt out" is a 1 way street.  You can stand outside the hospital with a placard saying you opt out.  But if your woman is inside with your sick baby, the taxpayer doesn't opt out.  So all that has happened is that you have freeloaded.

How can that be a good thing?

[Hawker]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Opt out. If you truly don't believe in the system you are a part of, stop paying for it.

+1

And note that this opting out doesn't have to be a total thing, or all at once, or even illegal.

Find your greatest point of disagreement with the system, and figure out a way to reduce or eliminate your monetary and/or social contributions to it, in proportion to your priorities; the legality of the chosen method is up to you.

In due time, continue for each next-greater point of disagreement until you reach a balance between your conscience, your safety, your desired standard of living, etc.

Simply doing this would be enough for most people.

"Opt out" is a 1 way street.  You can stand outside the hospital with a placard saying you opt out.  But if your woman is inside with your sick baby, the taxpayer doesn't opt out.  So all that has happened is that you have freeloaded.

How can that be a good thing?

Who said anything about freeloading? If you get a woman pregnant, I would hope you and her have the ability to pay for medical care and raise the child, otherwise you are simply irresponsible.

To opt out is to vote with something more powerful than your voice.

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab.  You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

[Hawker]

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab.  You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

Umm, if my child is sick I pick up the tab. Yes, I would prefer the state not pay for medical care. We have families, friends, organizations, churches, etc. for times of desperate need.

You say that now.  But if your child's life were on the line, you would not sit at home saying "let her die" if the hospital up the road could save her, would you ? 

[Hawker]

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab.  You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

Umm, if my child is sick I pick up the tab. Yes, I would prefer the state not pay for medical care. We have families, friends, organizations, churches, etc. for times of desperate need.

You say that now.  But if your child's life were on the line, you would not sit at home saying "let her die" if the hospital up the road could save her, would you ? 

I told you what I would do, I would reach out to my non-immediate circle of support. The generousness of human beings is overwhelming. I would never force anyone to treat her.

That is still freeloading.  Just not a very reliable way of going about it.

[Hawker]

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab.  You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

Umm, if my child is sick I pick up the tab. Yes, I would prefer the state not pay for medical care. We have families, friends, organizations, churches, etc. for times of desperate need.

You say that now.  But if your child's life were on the line, you would not sit at home saying "let her die" if the hospital up the road could save her, would you ? 

I told you what I would do, I would reach out to my non-immediate circle of support. The generousness of human beings is overwhelming. I would never force anyone to treat her.

That is still freeloading.  Just not a very reliable way of going about it.

Which is why I wouldn't have children without being prepared for the responsibility. And there is nothing wrong with accepting voluntary assistance. It's only when people are forced to pay for it that it becomes a problem.

That's nonsense and you know it.  A taxpayer funded system costs less to run so its actually easier for people to be prepared for the responsibility.  The alternative is a more expensive system where the irresponsible and the unfortunate get free care but everyone else gets hammered like in the US.

[westkybitcoins]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Opt out. If you truly don't believe in the system you are a part of, stop paying for it.

+1

And note that this opting out doesn't have to be a total thing, or all at once, or even illegal.

Find your greatest point of disagreement with the system, and figure out a way to reduce or eliminate your monetary and/or social contributions to it, in proportion to your priorities; the legality of the chosen method is up to you.

In due time, continue for each next-greater point of disagreement until you reach a balance between your conscience, your safety, your desired standard of living, etc.

Simply doing this would be enough for most people.

"Opt out" is a 1 way street.  You can stand outside the hospital with a placard saying you opt out.  But if your woman is inside with your sick baby, the taxpayer doesn't opt out.  So all that has happened is that you have freeloaded.

How can that be a good thing?

Who said anything about freeloading? If you get a woman pregnant, I would hope you and her have the ability to pay for medical care and raise the child, otherwise you are simply irresponsible.

To opt out is to vote with something more powerful than your voice.

The point is, if your child is sick, the state still picks up the tab.  You can choose to pay privately if you want but if you can't the state does not have the option to "opt out" nor would you want it to.

I would absolutely want and expect the state to opt out. In many cases, it opts out of providing services it is "supposed to" anyway, while still forcing folks to pay.

There is nothing the state does that cannot be done more efficiently and more morally by NOT initiating force against innocents.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I would absolutely want and expect the state to opt out. In many cases, it opts out of providing services it is "supposed to" anyway, while still forcing folks to pay.

There is nothing the state does that cannot be done more efficiently and more morally by NOT initiating force against innocents.

Lets stick to facts shall we.  The NHS in the UK provides health care nationally and efficeintly to all.  Its free at the point of delivery.  Its run by the state.  Can you point to a private system that is more efficient?

[westkybitcoins]

...snip...

I would absolutely want and expect the state to opt out. In many cases, it opts out of providing services it is "supposed to" anyway, while still forcing folks to pay.

There is nothing the state does that cannot be done more efficiently and more morally by NOT initiating force against innocents.

Lets stick to facts shall we.  The NHS in the UK provides health care nationally and efficeintly to all.  Its free at the point of delivery.  Its run by the state.  Can you point to a private system that is more efficient?

Yes. The US system, before the involvement of government in health care, accounting for technological differences between the times. The UK's own system back then would probably work too, but I know less about it.

Thought experiment: take the current UK system. Keep it basically the same. Slash everyone's taxes in proportion to how much goes toward national health care. Charge people for services up to that amount. Let people pay any extra they wish, or keep any unspent portion. Finally, take the money, manpower and time spent propping up the system from the political and bureaucratic angles (including the proper portion spent on tax enforcement) and refund all that as well. Of course, it's a given that charity should be encouraged, and allowed without restriction.

Do you not see any advantages to that adjustment in terms of health services per £, in the short-term also but especially in the long-term?

[Hawker]

...snip...

I would absolutely want and expect the state to opt out. In many cases, it opts out of providing services it is "supposed to" anyway, while still forcing folks to pay.

There is nothing the state does that cannot be done more efficiently and more morally by NOT initiating force against innocents.

Lets stick to facts shall we.  The NHS in the UK provides health care nationally and efficeintly to all.  Its free at the point of delivery.  Its run by the state.  Can you point to a private system that is more efficient?

Yes. The US system, before the involvement of government in health care, accounting for technological differences between the times. The UK's own system back then would probably work too, but I know less about it.

Thought experiment: take the current UK system. Keep it basically the same. Slash everyone's taxes in proportion to how much goes toward national health care. Charge people for services up to that amount. Let people pay any extra they wish, or keep any unspent portion. Finally, take the money, manpower and time spent propping up the system from the political and bureaucratic angles (including the proper portion spent on tax enforcement) and refund all that as well. Of course, it's a given that charity should be encouraged, and allowed without restriction.

Do you not see any advantages to that adjustment in terms of health services per £, in the short-term also but especially in the long-term?

The problem is that medicine costs the same in the UK and the US.  It all comes from the same companies.  But delivery of medicine is far more expensive in the US because you have to pay for insurance advertising, drug advertising and because very often Americans are gouged by the system "Pay this stupid bill or you die screaming in pain."

If it helps, thats how it used to work here.  The NHS was introduced because WW2 destroyed the economy and there was not enough money for the marketing side of the health industry.  Given that it works, I can't see how you can make a case for transferring the delivery staff from the state payroll to a company payroll - all you have done is create an entity that will demand a return on capital and this raised your running costs.

The UK has private hospitals and charities - thats sort of a side issue.

[Bind]

The NHS in the UK provides health care nationally and efficeintly to all.  Its free at the point of delivery.  Its run by the state.  Can you point to a private system that is more efficient?

Absolutely.

I walk in, get care, and pay my bill. Nothing more efficient than that.

No beaurocracy, no overhead, and no paperwork involved other than my invoice of services rendered.

Being free or public does not make it more efficient than paid or private.

Even if insured, the insurance company gets the bill and I pay nothing at the time of the visit.

Health insurance should not be a right. Health care should not be a right. If people fail to prepare, it may sound harsh, but they need to pay for what they steal. I bust my fucking ass to prepare and save because I am a responsible person. Last thing I need is someone stealing my ability to provide for my family at the point of a gun because they have failed to prepare. Every penny they steal off me lessens my ability to provide for my own responsibilities.

We need work camps for the people who cant take care of themselves, and I have posted about this before, which relates to all forms of welfare, including health care:

If you take from other people, you need to reimburse them for what you are taking. Simple contract. You shouldnt be taking their money through threat of force and prison just because you are lazy or have failed to prepare.

Need housing, food, and clothing ?

No problem. I will give you housing, food, and clothing in exchange for your labor and all your other worldly possessions of value.

Lets put those old military bases, old prisons, and FEMA camps to good use. You and your kids will develop the land and perform construction as needed, work on infrastructure and reclamation projects, prep, cook, clean, do dishes, wash clothing and linens, tend the fields and gardens, tend the livestock, make furniture, make clothing and linens, cut grass, cut wood, sew, etc... in other words you will work and produce for your own existence and to pay back what you are taking from others.

You wont get a car, computer, big/flat screen tv, cell phone, ipad, xbox or any other gaming station, no fancy clothing and shoes and jewelry, or anything else frivolous or otherwise not needed.

If a profit is made from your work, then you may get a little money you can put away as a managed savings to use when you no longer need assistance, minus what you owe of course..

There will be an auditorium for movies and meetings or speeches, maybe a library, community day rooms for your off-work hours where you can socialize, play games, use a computer, and watch tv, and an ourdoor activity area.

Old people unable to care for themselves or produce will get a pass from doing any work they are unable to do, but hey, I know alot of old people who do lots of arts and crafts, accounting, clerical work, and even counting widgets that could be sold for a profit.

Dont like it?

Then go get a job,or start a business, and be responsible for the family you created and take care of your family elders.

If you are going to steal my money through threat of prison and force, you should at least earn it. I know I earned the money you are stealing that pays for your benefits and privilages. I earned that money you are stealing by my labor ... my blood, sweat, and tears... my work ... and every penny you steal takes away from my ability to provide for my own family and responsibilities, but no one ever talks about that. People are losing their jobs, homes, and ability to survive to allow YOU to prosper and survive from doing absolutely nothing but getting your entitlements.

[cbeast]

In a country with NHS, nothing stops you from going to a private hospital with gourmet menus and personal physicians. Pay as much as you like.

[Hawker]

In a country with NHS, nothing stops you from going to a private hospital with gourmet menus and personal physicians. Pay as much as you like.

Correct.  I had a small tumour a few years back and the NHS said "Tuesday 10am - that's when you will be done."  As it happened, I was busy so had it removed privately at a time that suited me.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Health insurance should not be a right. Health care should not be a right. If people fail to prepare, it may sound harsh, but they need to pay for what they steal. I bust my fucking ass to prepare and save because I am a responsible person. Last thing I need is someone stealing my ability to provide for my family at the point of a gun because they have failed to prepare. Every penny they steal off me lessens my ability to provide for my own responsibilities.

...snip...

We live in rich societies where the cost of universal health care is trivial.  The expensive part is selling insurance and advertising.  Every penny spent on them is taken from you when you are sick.  Its entirely legitimate for society to say it is a right and skip the adverts.  Why should poor people pay for marketing when all they really want is the medicine?

[westkybitcoins]

<snip>

Yes. The US system, before the involvement of government in health care, accounting for technological differences between the times. The UK's own system back then would probably work too, but I know less about it.

Thought experiment: take the current UK system. Keep it basically the same. Slash everyone's taxes in proportion to how much goes toward national health care. Charge people for services up to that amount. Let people pay any extra they wish, or keep any unspent portion. Finally, take the money, manpower and time spent propping up the system from the political and bureaucratic angles (including the proper portion spent on tax enforcement) and refund all that as well. Of course, it's a given that charity should be encouraged, and allowed without restriction.

Do you not see any advantages to that adjustment in terms of health services per £, in the short-term also but especially in the long-term?

The problem is that medicine costs the same in the UK and the US.  It all comes from the same companies.  But delivery of medicine is far more expensive in the US because you have to pay for insurance advertising, drug advertising and because very often Americans are gouged by the system "Pay this stupid bill or you die screaming in pain."

If it helps, thats how it used to work here.  The NHS was introduced because WW2 destroyed the economy and there was not enough money for the marketing side of the health industry.  Given that it works, I can't see how you can make a case for transferring the delivery staff from the state payroll to a company payroll - all you have done is create an entity that will demand a return on capital and this raised your running costs.

The UK has private hospitals and charities - thats sort of a side issue.

That's kind of what I'm pointing out. You correctly assess that there will be a profit motive once health care is privatized, but you're not assessing the extra costs of having something public as opposed to private.

Perhaps an example might work better for me:

1) Tinytown has a tiny population. Health care costs are, let's say, "average." One day there's a town meeting, and the mayor brings Joe to the podium. Joe has no clue what's going on. The mayor suddenly announces that Joe, being poor, and struggling to pay each health care bill he incurs, is now going to be guaranteed health care by the town. He states that everyone, including Joe, will pay a small tax for the service, which will be available to all. A big grin crosses Joe's face. Now, considering the months and years after this, do you think there is any reason to suspect that the actual costs of Joe's health care might wind up being dramatically greater than average, even if the cost of each individual service remains average?

2) Do you think that the long-term cost of each individual health care service in Tinytown might be impacted by this announcement?

[Bind]

We live in rich societies where the cost of universal health care is trivial.

It is not trivial, ergo the debate and my almost doubled health care insurance rates.

The expensive part is selling insurance and advertising.  Every penny spent on them is taken from you when you are sick.  Its entirely legitimate for society to say it is a right and skip the adverts.  Why should poor people pay for marketing when all they really want is the medicine?

No, the expensive part is the administrative costs. You have that in both public and private system. Due to the inefficiency of government, public systems would be more costly, especially so In the United States where the Internal Revenue Service is charged with Administration and Enforcement issues on top of the existing administration costs incurred by the insurers actually doing the insuring. Thats why my insurance rates have almost doubled since ObamaCare was signed into law, requiring all citizens to be insured under penalty of fines and imprisonment.

I am not an unkind nor unfeeling person. I think everyone should have access to health care, but they need to pay for it, which is why my work camp idea would work great. It simply isnt right to steal off people at the point of a gun and call it legal because some have been put down and disenfranchised to the point they are unable to care for themselves. I believe its all part of a plan to steal our state sovereignty, freedom, liberty, land, and wealth.

The system needs reset, but the utopian throw all your shit in a pile and share isnt the way to go about it.

[cbeast]

Health care should not be a right. If people fail to prepare, it may sound harsh, but they need to pay for what they steal.

Truer words never spoken.

Why stop there? Why not get rid of public police, fire departments, public roads, national defense, regulation of utilities, etc. Why should any of those be a right?

[Eveofwar]

Health care should not be a right. If people fail to prepare, it may sound harsh, but they need to pay for what they steal.

Truer words never spoken.

Why stop there? Why not get rid of public police, fire departments, public roads, national defense, regulation of utilities, etc. Why should any of those be a right?

Police already have no obligation to protect you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[cbeast]

Health care should not be a right. If people fail to prepare, it may sound harsh, but they need to pay for what they steal.

Truer words never spoken.

Why stop there? Why not get rid of public police, fire departments, public roads, national defense, regulation of utilities, etc. Why should any of those be a right?

Police already have no obligation to protect you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

That was 1975. It was even before 911 (the phone number). Crimes like that were almost unheard of back then.

[Hunterbunter]

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Opt out. If you truly don't believe in the system you are a part of, stop paying for it.

The Greeks opted out of paying for their government's corruption (lots of people stopped paying taxes, apparently). Now everyone is mad at them and seeking to control them in another way.

[Eveofwar]

Health care should not be a right. If people fail to prepare, it may sound harsh, but they need to pay for what they steal.

Truer words never spoken.

Why stop there? Why not get rid of public police, fire departments, public roads, national defense, regulation of utilities, etc. Why should any of those be a right?

Police already have no obligation to protect you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

That was 1975. It was even before 911 (the phone number). Crimes like that were almost unheard of back then.

Whether it was 1975 or 2005, the ruling still stands.  Call for protection, it doesn't get delivered and you're harmed as a result, they are not liable.

[Bind]

Health care should not be a right. If people fail to prepare, it may sound harsh, but they need to pay for what they steal.

Truer words never spoken.

Why stop there? Why not get rid of public police, fire departments, public roads, national defense, regulation of utilities, etc. Why should any of those be a right?

They need crime to justify the costs of the corrections, law enforcement, and judicial systems, which is why they do so little to stop crime. They react to crime and are thankful their efforts to increase it have worked so well. Its a never-ending cashflow turnstyle and each new ordinance and statute law makes more and more criminals out of a once law-abiding citizenry. You know, thats the difference between most low end criminals and law abiding citizens. The Law. You were once a rural farm, then the local municipality rezones your land unbeknownst to you. Your fields of wild grass are now considered a "lawn". Let your "lawn" grow more than 6 inches, you get a fine every day until its cut because all of a sudden your rural land thats now rezoned is called "in blight" or "blighted". Dont pay the fine, the cops show up, cuff you, and take you to prison until you see a judge and pay it, else you stay in prison "earning" $10 a day until its paid. Thats the jist of our justice system at work. Mostly is raping law abiding citizen for the Kings Taxes just like the King's Sheriff used to do.

The majoroty of fire departments here in America are 100% volunteer. They survive on the good intentions and donation from the community. They ahve festival, bake sales, events, and yard/garage sales to make money and buy equipment, and often local business "advertise" with them in their circulars for money. Only in the cities do you have paid and unionized fire departments using public tax funds. The vonunteer fire companies would also work for the cities, because responsible citizens realize the importance of the services they provide, just like in suburban and rural areas.

Public roads are 100% paid for by tolls, state taxes on gasoline, and the funds from users of state DMV's.

National Defense is an absolute must, but not the Armies of the American Empire we have today policing the world and acting as the strong arm of the political elite, international conglomerates, and banking interests which parallel the interest of the state. National Defense comes from corporate taxation. Its their economic interested they protect the most. Just ask George Herbert Walker Bush who used them to sieze land for the United Fruit Company's (think chaquita banana), a left wing company I might add, use in the 1980's and Iraq in the 1990's when they wanted to accept only gold for their oil reserves. It was an interesting buyout really as Zapata and Textron both bid on UFC for the CIA contracts, but Eli Black won out... but thats another story related to Bush and the CIA. The thing here is how the US MIlitary is often used with the costs put on the taxpayer through higher product prices as well-connected coporations rarely lose money and pass any cost increates, including taxation, on to the consumer. Anotehr is afghanistan, the oil pipeline to the caspian sea port, the caspian seaport itself, and of course the opium the Taliban had outlawed under penalty of death, that the US Military allowed to be restarted making Aghani opium to once again regain its above 90th percentile of world supply ranking. I could go on for hours alone on the US military and "national defense".

Most utilities are already deregulated, which was great preparation for the draconian enviromental laws increasing the costs on industries relying on fossil fuels, like coal, which powers the majority of the electricity generation in the United States, allowing them to raise the prices to make electric heat in the home prohibitavely expensive for most. This is fine if you have the money to pay it, but people who dont have the money to pay it, has to either pay out even more money up front to retro-fit or get new heating technology installed that uses a less expensive heating medium, like propane, natural gas, fuel oil or coal or wood stoves, the latter two which are least expensive but prohibited in some locations and the stoves generally run $800-$2500, where furnaces for the others can run $1500-$4500. Land line telephone, water, and sewage costs have all skyrocketed in response.

[Hunterbunter]

Health insurance should not be a right. Health care should not be a right. If people fail to prepare, it may sound harsh, but they need to pay for what they steal. I bust my fucking ass to prepare and save because I am a responsible person. Last thing I need is someone stealing my ability to provide for my family at the point of a gun because they have failed to prepare. Every penny they steal off me lessens my ability to provide for my own responsibilities.

The only way you're going to get that is at the point of a bigger gun (or pen, I suppose).

If you are going to steal my money through threat of prison and force, you should at least earn it. I know I earned the money you are stealing that pays for your benefits and privilages. I earned that money you are stealing by my labor ... my blood, sweat, and tears... my work ... and every penny you steal takes away from my ability to provide for my own family and responsibilities, but no one ever talks about that. People are losing their jobs, homes, and ability to survive to allow YOU to prosper and survive from doing absolutely nothing but getting your entitlements.

In Australia, welfare (as in pay you because you're able and don't have a job) accounts for 2% of the government budget. I think that's pretty insignificant. A lot more goes to disabilities, war vets, etc. My wife has worked trying to find people with disabilities jobs...no one wants to hire them. How are they going to save anything?

I'm a little confused by your post as to who you're really angry with...it seems a little at everyone for different reasons. It could even be that you're angry with capitalism/the society you live in...is that actually the case?

[Hawker]

We live in rich societies where the cost of universal health care is trivial.

It is not trivial, ergo the debate and my almost doubled health care insurance rates.

The expensive part is selling insurance and advertising.  Every penny spent on them is taken from you when you are sick.  Its entirely legitimate for society to say it is a right and skip the adverts.  Why should poor people pay for marketing when all they really want is the medicine?

No, the expensive part is the administrative costs. ...snip...

You are failing at logic here.  Marketing is administration.  Absent a taxpayer funded system, you need marketing and you need a return on investment for providers, so of course that is expensive.  The medicine itself is not the problem here - its the delivery system.

Here in the UK, you can visit as an American, get sick and get treated for free.  Why? Because its cheaper to treat you for free than to create a billing system for the few foreigners who get sick visiting here.  

Please stop posting for the sake of it and think what that means.  Your double health insurance rate is NOT an reflection of medical costs.  Its a reflection of the cost of marketing, of billing and of lobbying your politicians.  And while you say don't mind paying this extra money, its unreasonable to expect people who can't afford it to do without medicine because you say you prefer to pay extra.

[Bind]

You are failing at logic here.  Marketing is administration.  Absent a taxpayer funded system, you need marketing and you need a return on investment for providers, so of course that is expensive.  The medicine itself is not the problem here - its the delivery system.

Here in the UK, you can visit as an American, get sick and get treated for free.  Why? Because its cheaper to treat you for free than to create a billing system for the few foreigners who get sick visiting here.  

Please stop posting for the sake of it and think what that means.  Your double health insurance rate is NOT an reflection of medical costs.  Its a reflection of the cost of marketing, of billing and of lobbying your politicians.  And while you say don't mind paying this extra money, its unreasonable to expect people who can't afford it to do without medicine because you say you prefer to pay extra.

Medical costs are rising as well. So are perscriptions. The problem is the bastardized legislation. It basically gives the gov the free reign to raise our taxes more, allows insurance companies to charge us more for the same coverage, raise medical and medicine prices .... everything goes up... and many more problems wth it. Your system is obviously much better in comparison to Obamacare. This in no way is an admission that I agree with universal health insurance/care at all. I dont. But if they are going to shove this bullshit down my throat, at least do it in a way that doesnt make me go broke and is somewhat fair to the taxpayer. There is no way to justify doubling my insurance rates, let alone making me pay for it in my taxes.

[Hawker]

You are failing at logic here.  Marketing is administration.  Absent a taxpayer funded system, you need marketing and you need a return on investment for providers, so of course that is expensive.  The medicine itself is not the problem here - its the delivery system.

Here in the UK, you can visit as an American, get sick and get treated for free.  Why? Because its cheaper to treat you for free than to create a billing system for the few foreigners who get sick visiting here.  

Please stop posting for the sake of it and think what that means.  Your double health insurance rate is NOT an reflection of medical costs.  Its a reflection of the cost of marketing, of billing and of lobbying your politicians.  And while you say don't mind paying this extra money, its unreasonable to expect people who can't afford it to do without medicine because you say you prefer to pay extra.

Medical costs are rising as well. So are perscriptions. The problem is the bastardized legislation. It basically gives the gov the free reign to raise our taxes more, allows insurance companies to charge us more for the same coverage, raise medical and medicine prices .... everything goes up... and many more problems wth it. Your system is obviously much better in comparison to Obamacare. This in no way is an admission that I agree with universal health insurance/care at all. I dont. But if they are going to shove this bullshit down my throat, at least do it in a way that doesnt make me go broke and is somewhat fair to the taxpayer. There is no way to justify doubling my insurance rates, let alone making me pay for it in my taxes.

Again I'm battling with your perception that because you are charged more, the costs must be rising.  You are charged more because you live in a market economy and companies charge what the market will bear.  The costs of medicine are not close to doubling per year - so many drugs are coming out of patent that the big pharma companies are making profit warnings.  The extra money you are paying is the cost of having a private market where people who are sick can be charged anything to avoid dying early and tehj companies have to spend billions on advertising if they want to stay in business.

Everyone gets sick.  We get much the same illnesses and it costs about the same to treat cancer in a pauper as it does in a billionaire.  We all pay taxes.  It makes sense to use the tax to spread the cost of illness over your lifetime and reduce the total you pay.  What I can't seem to communicate to you is that you are paying too much because the advertising does you not good at all...its very frustrating.

[Bind]

You are failing at logic here.  Marketing is administration.  Absent a taxpayer funded system, you need marketing and you need a return on investment for providers, so of course that is expensive.  The medicine itself is not the problem here - its the delivery system.

Here in the UK, you can visit as an American, get sick and get treated for free.  Why? Because its cheaper to treat you for free than to create a billing system for the few foreigners who get sick visiting here.  

Please stop posting for the sake of it and think what that means.  Your double health insurance rate is NOT an reflection of medical costs.  Its a reflection of the cost of marketing, of billing and of lobbying your politicians.  And while you say don't mind paying this extra money, its unreasonable to expect people who can't afford it to do without medicine because you say you prefer to pay extra.

Medical costs are rising as well. So are perscriptions. The problem is the bastardized legislation. It basically gives the gov the free reign to raise our taxes more, allows insurance companies to charge us more for the same coverage, raise medical and medicine prices .... everything goes up... and many more problems wth it. Your system is obviously much better in comparison to Obamacare. This in no way is an admission that I agree with universal health insurance/care at all. I dont. But if they are going to shove this bullshit down my throat, at least do it in a way that doesnt make me go broke and is somewhat fair to the taxpayer. There is no way to justify doubling my insurance rates, let alone making me pay for it in my taxes.

Again I'm battling with your perception that because you are charged more, the costs must be rising.  You are charged more because you live in a market economy and companies charge what the market will bear.  The costs of medicine are not close to doubling per year - so many drugs are coming out of patent that the big pharma companies are making profit warnings.  The extra money you are paying is the cost of having a private market where people who are sick can be charged anything to avoid dying early and tehj companies have to spend billions on advertising if they want to stay in business.

Everyone gets sick.  We get much the same illnesses and it costs about the same to treat cancer in a pauper as it does in a billionaire.  We all pay taxes.  It makes sense to use the tax to spread the cost of illness over your lifetime and reduce the total you pay.  What I can't seem to communicate to you is that you are paying too much because the advertising does you not good at all...its very frustrating.

It's not increases from advertising. That irrelevent. Thats a comparison between YOUR SYSTEM and ours. Advertising does not explain away the comparison between pre and post Obamacare being penned into law in MY SYSTEM, which, ironically enough, is the only system I am talking about at present.

Thing is... its happening ... and NOT on the level of cost of living and inflation ... its WAY WAY WAY WAY above those minor increases that only happen over longer periods of time. Never this much of an increase this quickly.

[Hawker]

You are failing at logic here.  Marketing is administration.  Absent a taxpayer funded system, you need marketing and you need a return on investment for providers, so of course that is expensive.  The medicine itself is not the problem here - its the delivery system.

Here in the UK, you can visit as an American, get sick and get treated for free.  Why? Because its cheaper to treat you for free than to create a billing system for the few foreigners who get sick visiting here.  

Please stop posting for the sake of it and think what that means.  Your double health insurance rate is NOT an reflection of medical costs.  Its a reflection of the cost of marketing, of billing and of lobbying your politicians.  And while you say don't mind paying this extra money, its unreasonable to expect people who can't afford it to do without medicine because you say you prefer to pay extra.

Medical costs are rising as well. So are perscriptions. The problem is the bastardized legislation. It basically gives the gov the free reign to raise our taxes more, allows insurance companies to charge us more for the same coverage, raise medical and medicine prices .... everything goes up... and many more problems wth it. Your system is obviously much better in comparison to Obamacare. This in no way is an admission that I agree with universal health insurance/care at all. I dont. But if they are going to shove this bullshit down my throat, at least do it in a way that doesnt make me go broke and is somewhat fair to the taxpayer. There is no way to justify doubling my insurance rates, let alone making me pay for it in my taxes.

Again I'm battling with your perception that because you are charged more, the costs must be rising.  You are charged more because you live in a market economy and companies charge what the market will bear.  The costs of medicine are not close to doubling per year - so many drugs are coming out of patent that the big pharma companies are making profit warnings.  The extra money you are paying is the cost of having a private market where people who are sick can be charged anything to avoid dying early and tehj companies have to spend billions on advertising if they want to stay in business.

Everyone gets sick.  We get much the same illnesses and it costs about the same to treat cancer in a pauper as it does in a billionaire.  We all pay taxes.  It makes sense to use the tax to spread the cost of illness over your lifetime and reduce the total you pay.  What I can't seem to communicate to you is that you are paying too much because the advertising does you not good at all...its very frustrating.

It's not increases from advertising. That irrelevent. Thats a comparison between YOUR SYSTEM and ours. Advertising does not explain away the comparison between pre and post Obamacare being penned into law in MY SYSTEM, which, ironically enough, is the only system I am talking about at present.

Thing is... its happening ... and NOT on the level of cost of living and inflation ... its WAY WAY WAY WAY above those minor increases that only happen over longer periods of time. Never this much of an increase this quickly.

My understanding is that Obamacare was brought in because the existing system was not affordable and it was supported by insurance companies because they feared going out of business.  On the face of it, that stinks but I'll leave your American compatriots argue for or against Obamacare.  To an outsider, the appalling thing is that you are paying nearly twice what we pay for care and getting a lower standard of service. 

[stochastic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyf97LAjjcY

The amount of statists that participate in bitcoin is frightening.  Anyway, all I can say is that I am glad I live in Texas.  We have some nice laws that keep "pain and suffering" litigation to a reasonable amount.  We also have a "loser pays" law to cut down on frivolous lawsuits.  This cuts down the costs of health care and also makes the patient to doctor ratio in Texas one of the lowest in the country.

To become a doctor in America, a person must go to 4 years of university, 4 years of medical school, and then do many years of residency training.  For 8 years of their life they racked up debt.  The poorest and smartest ones may have been able to get scholarships or grants in their university, but in medical school everyone is smart so no chance of substantial scholarships.  Medical school is very expensive.  There are 9 medical schools in Texas.  Some states in America have only 1 or none.  My  brother-in-law has tuition at a medical school in Texas at $10,000 per year.  That is a steal.  In some states it can cost up to $80,000 a year.

After medical school the new doctor gets to work 80+ hours a week for less than minimum wage.  They also likely have over $100,000 in student loan debt that they have to start paying back 6 months after they start their new job.  They can postpone payment but their interest is capitalized and at 6.5% that loan can grow really fast.

It is no wonder why medical fees are expensive.  A doctor has been educated for 8 years, has a residency program from 3 to 10 years, and in the mean time they get paid terribly and have a lot of debt.  Then when they get a job their taxes will be in the 40% range.  They have to pay for malpractice insurance that is a substantial cost.  Doctors have to keep high insurance for everything else.  For example, if they get in a car accident and the other driver's insurance company/lawyer sees Dr. in front of the name, then that is a plus sign for a lawsuit.

For prescription drugs and other advances of health care, increasing medical costs is a good thing.  Everyone always wants the best care, and having the best doctors and the best technology costs a lot of money.  It is not until we make great technological breakthroughs that the cost of medicine will go down.  Now, antibiotics are almost free but in the past they were extremely expensive.  The same thing will happen that are now very expensive treatments.

Say a pharmaceutical company figures out how to manipulate telomerase so a person can live forever.  How much do you think someone is willing to pay for that?  There are 4 main thing that drive an economy: Agriculture, Energy, Homes, and Health.  Everything else is just entertainment or helps us increase our efficiency in the agriculture, energy, home, or health industries.

[Hawker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyf97LAjjcY

The amount of statists that participate in bitcoin is frightening.  Anyway, all I can say is that I am glad I live in Texas.  We have some nice laws that keep "pain and suffering" litigation to a reasonable amount.  We also have a "loser pays" law to cut down on frivolous lawsuits.  This cuts down the costs of health care and also makes the patient to doctor ratio in Texas one of the lowest in the country.

To become a doctor in America, a person must go to 4 years of university, 4 years of medical school, and then do many years of residency training.  For 8 years of their life they racked up debt.  The poorest and smartest ones may have been able to get scholarships or grants in their university, but in medical school everyone is smart so no chance of substantial scholarships.  Medical school is very expensive.  There are 9 medical schools in Texas.  Some states in America have only 1 or none.  My  brother-in-law has tuition at a medical school in Texas at $10,000 per year.  That is a steal.  In some states it can cost up to $80,000 a year.

After medical school the new doctor gets to work 80+ hours a week for less than minimum wage.  They also likely have over $100,000 in student loan debt that they have to start paying back 6 months after they start their new job.  They can postpone payment but their interest is capitalized and at 6.5% that loan can grow really fast.

It is no wonder why medical fees are expensive.  A doctor has been educated for 8 years, has a residency program from 3 to 10 years, and in the mean time they get paid terribly and have a lot of debt.  Then when they get a job their taxes will be in the 40% range.  They have to pay for malpractice insurance that is a substantial cost.  Doctors have to keep high insurance for everything else.  For example, if they get in a car accident and the other driver's insurance company/lawyer sees Dr. in front of the name, then that is a plus sign for a lawsuit.

For prescription drugs and other advances of health care, increasing medical costs is a good thing.  Everyone always wants the best care, and having the best doctors and the best technology costs a lot of money.  It is not until we make great technological breakthroughs that the cost of medicine will go down.  Now, antibiotics are almost free but in the past they were extremely expensive.  The same thing will happen that are now very expensive treatments.

Say a pharmaceutical company figures out how to manipulate telomerase so a person can live forever.  How much do you think someone is willing to pay for that?  There are 4 main thing that drive an economy: Agriculture, Energy, Homes, and Health.  Everything else is just entertainment or helps us increase our efficiency in the agriculture, energy, home, or health industries.

We are not statist out of some love of the word state; we are statist when its the most efficient option.  Texas may be relatively cheap compared to other states but you are still paying too much for healthcare.  Its your country so its your own choice to pay that extra money but that doesn't mean everyone who prefers to spend their money wisely is some kind of "statist"

On the doctors with debt issue, the funny thing is that guys go to med schools in Africa in India that are very cheap, they then get visas to work in the EU and arrived in places like England and get paid £109,000 per year from day 1.  Yet in our rich countries, med school costs a fortune.  Obviously a lot of money is being wasted or else we are risking life and limb giving these guys from developing world med schools the same jobs as people from European schools.

[Hawker]

On the doctors with debt issue, the funny thing is that guys go to med schools in Africa in India that are very cheap, they then get visas to work in the EU and arrived in places like England and get paid £109,000 per year from day 1.  Yet in our rich countries, med school costs a fortune.  Obviously a lot of money is being wasted or else we are risking life and limb giving these guys from developing world med schools the same jobs as people from European schools.

Hmm... seems these foreign medical students found a way to take advantage of a system that other countries have in place. Is it a problem? If so, is the fix to prohibit these people from obtaining productive employment in your country? Or is it the system itself that needs fixed?

We welcome them - you can't have too many doctors.  My puzzlement is that it costs so much less to educate a doctor in Sri Lanka for example yet his qualification is the same as one from Harvard Medical School.

[Hawker]

On the doctors with debt issue, the funny thing is that guys go to med schools in Africa in India that are very cheap, they then get visas to work in the EU and arrived in places like England and get paid £109,000 per year from day 1.  Yet in our rich countries, med school costs a fortune.  Obviously a lot of money is being wasted or else we are risking life and limb giving these guys from developing world med schools the same jobs as people from European schools.

Hmm... seems these foreign medical students found a way to take advantage of a system that other countries have in place. Is it a problem? If so, is the fix to prohibit these people from obtaining productive employment in your country? Or is it the system itself that needs fixed?

We welcome them - you can't have too many doctors.  My puzzlement is that it costs so much less to educate a doctor in Sri Lanka for example yet his qualification is the same as one from Harvard Medical School.

Are his qualifications the same? And I don't mean his paper qualifications, I mean his skill qualifications.

I don't know :S  My question was genuinely a question.  Are our schools better than theirs and is the difference worth the price?

[Hawker]

In practical terms, everyday medical practice may well be slightly more complex than car repair so we are wasting huge brains and long years study on general practitioners.  Anyway, we are off topic so I'll stop.

[Vitalik Buterin]

In practical terms, everyday medical practice may well be slightly more complex than car repair so we are wasting huge brains and long years study on general practitioners.  Anyway, we are off topic so I'll stop.

I think this is an interesting question. Why does health care at places like these: http://www.bumrungrad.com/thailandhospital cost so little, and why can't they just import themselves to the US and get huge profits until the costs make their way down to their level?

[Hawker]

In practical terms, everyday medical practice may well be slightly more complex than car repair so we are wasting huge brains and long years study on general practitioners.  Anyway, we are off topic so I'll stop.

I think this is an interesting question. Why does health care at places like these: http://www.bumrungrad.com/thailandhospital cost so little, and why can't they just import themselves to the US and get huge profits until the costs make their way down to their level?

In any economy there is a rentier class.  The health sector in pretty well every country is packed with these rent seekers.  The day the Thai doctor shows up to work in New York, he gets his key to the huge income of the local system.  If he tries to undercut, he will get disbarred for unprofessional conduct.

[Fizzgig]

Why is it that morals are so simple as children, (the golden rule applies to most moral issues) yet so complicated and perverted when we grow up? Simple, it's because we have to adapt to this immoral system, namely our government's monopoly on force. At the same time we must convince ourselves that we are not immoral even though we enable this system.

Let's say you are a school teacher, everyone loves teachers! You are paid with dollars which are extracted by force from the population. Should the population pay your salary? If yes, first realize that a sizable portion of that money will be used to pay bureaucrats. Next, realize that the continuation of government schooling hurts private schools (costs go up, demand goes down), parents (have to pay twice to enroll child in private school), and kids (are taught to take tests, not learn what it takes to survive and thrive in the world). Also realize that once the private institutions are marginalized, innovation grinds to a crawl.

So let me ask you this, reader: do you make your livelihood through voluntaryism (mutual trade), or does the institution you work for accept money from the government or exists because of the monopolies granted by government?

Voluntaryism

I think it is important to understand the philosophy and morality of voluntaryism when trying to understand the legality/morality of bitcoin and it's uses. Here's an example of how people often misdiagnose the problem:

If many thousands of people started using bitcoin as a Western Union proxy, (cross-border money transfers), the US would have massive problems keeping inflation contained to certain areas. Most people look at this situation and realize that bitcoin can cause disruption in currency markets, therefore bitcoin should be regulated. However, people generally don't have any idea how corrupt the dollar monetary system is. What people fail to see is that our currency is so corrupted that honest, voluntary exchange is a threat to it.

Does it really make sense to jail people for inhaling smoke from a plant? No it doesn't, but jails are filled with drug abusers. This only works because one herd of sheeple is pitted against the other...NOT because of overwhelming government power. However, this policy does increases government power.

The next time a law passes which bans voluntary action, ask yourself...is this justified? (i.e. ANY law related to bitcoin...hint: the answer rhymes with snow).