Since the public employee unions have been reaping obscene profits off the taxpayers with their promised returns on their pensions for a few decades now, how about you cut your government pension? After all, you know we can't afford all the public pensions and we overpromised what we could pay, you could cut your pension and lessen our tax burden in gratitude. I would hate to think that public employees are greedy monsters in need of fiscal discipline or something
There are. Remember all the major insurance companies have at least 50 different companies because they have to be separated by state. There are also countless other smaller providers.
An interesting new angle to stopping this ridiculous mandate http://volokh.com/2010/04/13/health-insurance-mandate-as-a-privacy-right-violation/ It's no one's business whether or not you have health insurance, just as it's no one's business whether or not you have an abortion.
Well, if I have no insurance, but I suffer a life-threatening emergency, then a hospital will be required by law to treat me at great expense with little hope of repayment, thereby causing them to increase costs across the board for future patients in order to make up for the shortfall caused by my lack of insurance. So, in that way, my lack of insurance has an impact on society, and is therefore "other people's business." You know what--I don't buy it either.
I don't really see the point of this sort of tactic. If government doesn't have the right to mandate that you buy a product, they certainly have the right to tax you and provide that product to you as a government service. Aren't conservatives trying to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire here? barfo
Well, sure, but they aren't going to have all 50 sub companies compete in all 50 states if you open it up. They'll just consolidate their 50 companies into one. barfo
Any data on how much providing emergency room care to the uninsured costs? My guess is that it is nowhere near $1 Trillion over 10 years. That being the case, we are better off keeping the system as is, and continue paying for uninsured to get emergency room care.
Even considering those, there are tons of small insurance companies. I think the last number I saw was almost 13,000 registered health insurance companies. If you expand their markets, they'll specialize. One will specialize in covering smokers, another cancer survivors, another people with diabetes, another triatheletes, etc.
Shocking news. http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/numbers-were-lie-all-along.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3JlcG9ydGhlYWx0aA-- http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/cbo-credibility-first-victim-of.html
So you don't like police, fire departments, public education, and the military? Because those are all things where "income" is taken and shared "equally", where everyone is welcome, and where the amount you pay ("taxes") is determined by the government. You really, and your ilk, have no idea what communism and socialism really are.
Obama is a millionaire. Probably "socialism's" first! How does that jibe? Is Obama a Democrat? Yes, but that is not the same thing as socialism or communism, just as being a Republican does not make one a fascist. I find this 'Obama is a socialist' talk mostly hooey. Where's the beef? I read that article. I have little respect for Jonah Goldberg generally and remain unconvinced. The auto bailout and TARP programs were necessary to SAVE CAPITALISM. I mean, comeon. That was the point. Even the Businessweek article I posted said that Obama's economic plan is free market oriented.
I think there's a distinction between saying someone is fascist (or socialist) and something they do is fascist (or socialist). Taking over GM and forcing people to pay for health care is socialist. On the other hand, socialists don't particularly want to work with big business or reform it - they want it to be community owned (though it is through public stock, FWIW). On the other other hand, fascists DO.
Wow, that is pretty scary. So Obama is really a fascist who has socialist policies? Sortof a combination of Mussolini and Stalin? But without their toughness? So kindof a spineless Mussolini combined with spineless Stalin? Otherwise known as Jimmy Carter?
I didn't say that now, did I? His taking over GM and Fannie/Freddie and AIG and the health care thing are socialist things. His quest to "save" the private sector by regulating it and being owned by it is fascist. Is he particularly either one? No. If anything, I question his overall competence for the job, and some of these policies are downright disastrous.
No, you're always very careful not to explicitly say that. I just find it amusing that political discussion can no longer be about reasoned agreement or disagreement over policies. It has to be a referendum on whether the sitting President is a communist/fascist/terrorist/monarchist.
