.

[Explodicle]

And how do you expect to hide any land and buildings you might own? If you don't pay property taxes, they can just seize your property. Likewise with VAT, they can monitor where natural resources are being extracted and refined.

Who is going to seize my property?  I'll just have my bodyguard service prevent anyone from stealing my property.  Besides, there will be no one to do the seizing because the government will have gone broke by this point.  This wasn't possible before because accounts can be frozen & cash can be stolen.  With brainwallet, there's no bank account, hidden stash under the mattress, etc.  I can take it with me anywhere without worrying about anyone stealing it.

So... the government won't be able to afford collecting taxes from you? How do you expect the government to go broke BEFORE they're rendered unable to collect property taxes?

And what about the public? I doubt they'd just put up with some guy using up space and not offering anything in return. Especially once you fought off the cops, you'd have molotov cocktails flying in your window. Without police protection you'd need to pay the people off, which effectively functions as a tax. Remember, the poor people will have Bitcoin too and it's a lot cheaper to attack than defend.

In any system, statist or anarchist, you simply will never get away with using scarce natural resources for free.

[1713936444]

1713936444

[Gabi]

I'm European and as far as i know current USA health system is fail, if you can pay and you have an insurance then you are fine but if you are poor and without insurance then you can happily die that more or less no one care about you.

My mother-in-law needed a heart bypass a few years ago, and since she has been disabled since birth (blind) and not yet 55, she is not eligble for medicare or medicaid.  She's covered under a SSI (Social Security Income, it's a seperate program) but they don't cover life threatening issues like that.  Don't ask me why a government funded program for the health of disabled people wouldn't cover life threatening issues, but it didn't.

She got the bypass, paid for by a charity that the heart surgen belonged to.  The heart surgen did it for free, while the charity paid for everything else in the surgery room.  The only thing that she has to pay for is her follow up visits, because the SSI won't even cover that.

My wife & I paid for those ourselves.

So even under federally funded social health care, the poor could happily die and the government not care about it; but a private charity ran by actual doctors will make up the slack for government fail.

I have no faith that Obamacare will be better, or cheaper.

Well here she would go to the hospital and they would just get everything she need. Heart bypass and whatelse, without she having to pay for that. We already pay taxes after all.

I'm sorry that in USA the system sucks so much, i don't know if the "obamacare" would be better or not, but it can hardly be worse than the current system

[NghtRppr]

Why will it cause the world to end?

It won't but neither did owning people, denying women the right to vote or the Jewish holocaust. Perhaps, just perhaps, "the world will end" isn't a preferable criteria for value judgments?

[MoonShadow]

I'm European and as far as i know current USA health system is fail, if you can pay and you have an insurance then you are fine but if you are poor and without insurance then you can happily die that more or less no one care about you.

My mother-in-law needed a heart bypass a few years ago, and since she has been disabled since birth (blind) and not yet 55, she is not eligble for medicare or medicaid.  She's covered under a SSI (Social Security Income, it's a seperate program) but they don't cover life threatening issues like that.  Don't ask me why a government funded program for the health of disabled people wouldn't cover life threatening issues, but it didn't.

She got the bypass, paid for by a charity that the heart surgen belonged to.  The heart surgen did it for free, while the charity paid for everything else in the surgery room.  The only thing that she has to pay for is her follow up visits, because the SSI won't even cover that.

My wife & I paid for those ourselves.

So even under federally funded social health care, the poor could happily die and the government not care about it; but a private charity ran by actual doctors will make up the slack for government fail.

I have no faith that Obamacare will be better, or cheaper.

Well here she would go to the hospital and they would just get everything she need. Heart bypass and whatelse, without she having to pay for that. We already pay taxes after all.

I'm sorry that in USA the system sucks so much, i don't know if the "obamacare" would be better or not, but it can hardly be worse than the current system

You also have wait times.  The time interval between my Mil's diagnosis and actual surgery was three days.  The intervel between seeing her genprac and being referred to a heart specialist was about a week.  This was for someone with literally no money to spend on any of this, and it wasn't beause of any government payment scheme.  The fact  is that the real issue isn't the method of payment, but actuall access to quality health care; which is excellent in the US.  In government mandated systems, the governmenet is the gatekeeper.  This can be good or bad, but can only be bad in the US.  The fact that many Americans consider health care to be an industry that governments should not be involved in notwithstanding.  If you live in Europe and like what you have, good for you.  But I don't think that it can ever fly here, if for no other reason than many Americans simply don't want governments into thier private business.

[TheButterZone]

I'm sorry that in USA the system sucks so much, i don't know if the "obamacare" would be better or not, but it can hardly be worse than the current system

Every government can do (and usually does) worse than what it is already doing (the current system). The only government involvement in the medical system should be scaled all the way back to the courts, and nothing else.

[cbeast]

I wonder what America will have first, the metric system, high speed trains, a manned rocket space program, a tall skyscraper, or an economy that is built on industry rather than gambling? Because I know for sure we'll never have a NHS.

[nevafuse]

And what about the public? I doubt they'd just put up with some guy using up space and not offering anything in return. Especially once you fought off the cops, you'd have molotov cocktails flying in your window. Without police protection you'd need to pay the people off, which effectively functions as a tax. Remember, the poor people will have Bitcoin too and it's a lot cheaper to attack than defend.

In any system, statist or anarchist, you simply will never get away with using scarce natural resources for free.

I'm sure we could speculate for years about this.  I personally believe if enough people beginning using bit coins, tax revenue will plummet.  I wouldn't be the first to realize the amount I pay for taxes could be put to better use.  I'm not looking to get anything for free.  I realize I'll have to pay for protection, roads, & scarce resources. It really won't be much different other than getting a better bang for your buck.

[MoonShadow]

I wonder what America will have first, the metric system, high speed trains, a manned rocket space program, a tall skyscraper, or an economy that is built on industry rather than gambling? Because I know for sure we'll never have a NHS.

My money is on an economy built on industry, the 'Audit The Fed' bill passed out of committee...

...unanimously.

[benjamindees]

I wouldn't be the first to realize the amount I pay for taxes could be put to better use.  I'm not looking to get anything for free.  I realize I'll have to pay for protection, roads, & scarce resources. It really won't be much different other than getting a better bang for your buck.

I can tell you from experience that it's very easy to pay less and get more.  Move out of the city.  Your taxes go down.  You get the same crappy roads.  Food is cheaper.  The crime rate is lower by half.  Put up a fence, buy a gun and the biggest threat you will face will be the police, and there are fewer of them per capita.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html#/v/1702587311001/is-the-data-on-the-rising-cost-of-health-care-misleading/?playlist_id=87530

This seven minute clip from a recent Stossel episode explains some of the problems with Obamacare pretty well.

[MoonShadow]

A bit of thread necromancy to link this article about 'rationing' of healthcare.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/market-doesnt-ration/

[MoonShadow]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html#/v/1702587311001/is-the-data-on-the-rising-cost-of-health-care-misleading/?playlist_id=87530

This seven minute clip from a recent Stossel episode explains some of the problems with Obamacare pretty well.

Sure does explain that well.

What do you guys think of this. Its from Common Good. I like just about everything else Common Good says but have yet to read it.
http://commongood.3cdn.net/40b8923081a2c002be_o6m6vzft7.pdf

I stopped reading at "State based ideas..."

[hashman]

Only one person can ensure your health.

If you don't know who that is you better find out soon. 

Hint: it's not Obama, or any other people who don't really know or care about you. 

[compro01]

Only one person can ensure your health.

I'd reduce that to zero people.  Ensuring health is outright impossible.  All the healthy eating and exercise doesn't matter when you get hit by a car, or develop an autoimmune condition or an undiscovered congenital defect makes itself known.

[bb113]

Only one person can ensure your health.

I'd reduce that to zero people.  Ensuring health is outright impossible.  All the healthy eating and exercise doesn't matter when you get hit by a car, or develop an autoimmune condition or an undiscovered congenital defect makes itself known.

Which, it turns out, is not very likely:

Source:
http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/MEPSnetHC.jsp


You are much better off saving your own money and only having catastrophic insurance. The entire insurance industry is yet another ponzi scheme, here the old trick the young into subsidizing their healthcare.


Edit: Also I didn't make a pretty version of the graph but the vast majority of people paying 10k-100k in a year are under 25k and the graph for those 18-24 is even more skewed towards 0. The graph for those 65+ is almost the mirror image. Imagine if you/parents instead saved 2k a year since you started working. And also consider that insurance companies will take every opportunity to deny you coverage... and dont even pay the entire thing (you pay usually at least 20%). It is worse than going to the casino.

I encourage people to take a look at the data provided in that link for themselves rather than basing their opinions on news articles.

[myrkul]

You were already boiled slowly, you protest only at the very end.

+1

[bb113]

There is a really obvious pattern that if you can grow your ponzi big enough, the US government will start subsidizing it or even forcing people to partake in it to avoid civil unrest.

[bb113]

You were already boiled slowly, you protest only at the very end.

Wait was this directed at me? I just looked into this a couple months ago, but happened to have never bought insurance in my life or ever encouraged anyone to. Don't blame me.

[neptop]

In the country where I live we always (since WW2) had health care that worked pretty well. Free for everyone, extremely high quality, so many politicians from other big countries came to "our" hospitals (maybe you can guess where now). Then these idiots decided to change it (for the sake of it/make it a freer market) and now it's messed up. They did exactly the same with education causing a huge drop in education and health care index. It's still better than in other countries, but it really sucks how they can mess up so much, if you just have the wrong government for a bit. I don't care if it is free market or kinda socialist (like it was), if the quality is right, but why do they change something that used to work really well and stuff like the PISA study or the WHO (and foreign politicians of big countries being taken care of) said so? Why do politicians sometimes just love to break stuff. Now both sectors got problems with both financing (yes, they actually MADE money in that old socialist system! Doesn't that sound awesome?) and quality.

Sorry for being OT. I think it's a bit early to say whether it is good. You should maybe give a system ten, twenty years and then see how it was compared to the ten, twenty years before. I mean if you have a war/financial crisis/recession/... you just can't instantly compare it. Also you have to take a lot of things into account. Usually it also takes a while until it works smoothly. A bit like some computer programs.

[FinShaggy]