Why do you think the government is your hired thug?

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want to force you to give if you don't want. I just want you to go live all by yourself in the jungle. I don't want my Mother to live in the jungle and I don't want yours to either. So even though I don't like to give, probably any more than you, I see it as a moral duty just like it's a moral duty not to kill. So if you don't want to voluntarily do your moral duty or can't see the wisdom of it then you should be punished for your anti social behavior just as if you killed, no. Giving is not an option, it's a moral imperative that separates humans from non social forms of life. We don't survive well alone so we have obligations and you don't get a free ride. You aren't a free rolling wheel, you are a spoke.

I've done the "live in the jungle by myself" thing. When I turned 13, my dad drove me out to some land he owned in East Texas, left me with a sleeping bag, my pocket knife, some matches, and a 25-06 rifle. He said, "You're a man now, so you need to know how to survive. I'll be back in a week." It didn't rain, so overall it really wasn't that tough. Turns out he was watching me with binoculars from a seperate camp about a mile away.

All men should be charitable. But I simply don't think it's right to punish those who don't wish to be.

What do you think of pushing boys that are becoming men to be able to survive?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

I don't see it as one -or a group- against the government. I always thought in terms of total national takeover/revolt where "the people" would rise against the government. That's when being well armed would come in handy.

It would also help if ever there was a catastrophic global or national disaster/crisis where people would have to fend (defend) for themselves for a good while.

Like the LA Riots where police withdrew and told citizens that they'd have to take care of themselves for a while. :thumbsup:

Yes, now THAT was a happy, libertarian utopia as criminal mobs ruled the streets and innocents were killed for fun and profit.

Libertarians really fail to realize that's how it works with anarchy - it's not a Western movie of happy citizens peacefully co-existing, it's increasingly organized crime, going from the neighborhood, up to the city level, which increasingly wraps itself in the flag of legitimate government, as with the banana republics, just as Stalin and Saddam were 'elected'.

Libertarians cannot have the fantasy utopia they want; their only choices are our liberal democracy, or to destroy it and replace it with non-democratic oppression.

I was thinking more of the video of the immigrant Korean store owners armed with 12-gauge shotguns killing some 15 criminals\looters. The people who weren't armed got fucked by the riots. The people who were armed... well, they're preparedness paid off.

You try to dissuade the forces of liberty by threatening authoritarianism, but your alternative is... authoritarianism. I'll try it my way, thanks.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Yes, now THAT was a happy, libertarian utopia as criminal mobs ruled the streets and innocents were killed for fun and profit.

Libertarians really fail to realize that's how it works with anarchy - it's not a Western movie of happy citizens peacefully co-existing, it's increasingly organized crime, going from the neighborhood, up to the city level, which increasingly wraps itself in the flag of legitimate government, as with the banana republics, just as Stalin and Saddam were 'elected'.

Libertarians cannot have the fantasy utopia they want; their only choices are our liberal democracy, or to destroy it and replace it with non-democratic oppression.

You mean like in contrast to your socialist fantasy utopia that believes that a single monolithic institution provides all the choices and services that a modern democracy needs?

:roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

I've done the "live in the jungle by myself" thing. When I turned 13, my dad drove me out to some land he owned in East Texas, left me with a sleeping bag, my pocket knife, some matches, and a 25-06 rifle. He said, "You're a man now, so you need to know how to survive. I'll be back in a week." It didn't rain, so overall it really wasn't that tough. Turns out he was watching me with binoculars from a seperate camp about a mile away.

I hope you did not have the normal 13 year old's appetite for self-gratification, thinking you were alone out there.

All men should be charitable. But I simply don't think it's right to punish those who don't wish to be.

That's the difference between the ideologue and the person who has some understanding of the practicalities of modern society, as we learned from the Articles of Confederation.

There never has been, and never will be, a society you describe where the public's contribution to the tax system will be voluntary.

As I said above, your only choices are whether to have the taxes set by leaders you elect as we have now, or by a tyrant/oligarchy who will be far worse.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Nebor


And where do I sign up for my .gov car insurance? Just because people should have something doesn't mean the government should provide it. People should have food, and a new pair of shoes from time to time, etc. There are a lot of things that people should have. And by all means, if you see someone without one of those things, and you can afford to, give it to them. But don't try to make other people give when they don't want to.

So if private company provides universal health care, you have no problem signing up? what's the difference anyway, do you just hate the government or something?

If your belief don't interfere with the majority, you can live anyway you want. But having no control on guns, especially high powered ones interfere with the majority. Easy access to gun contributed to the high school shootings, and help criminal commit crimes with guns. Having people left out of the UNC increases the cost for everyone when we have the moral responsibility to care for those who doesn't wanna pay.

Hey, I don't wanna pay tax too with a big portion of that going to Iraq war and government waste. But that's the price to pay for living in a civilized society and I realize if it's something I don't want, I need to go through democratic process to get rid of it.

I'm already a member of "universal healthcare." It's an insurance company to which I pay a "tax" (fee) in exchange for coverage if anything bad happens to me. Just like with the government this is a "public good." Ie: Many people pay into it, and everyone can draw benefits. The difference is, there are no "free riders" in my system. But since there is a limited number of people in my system, I accept the fact that I pay about $15,000 a year for health insurance. ANd if you people make ANOTHER system in which I'm mandatorily enrolled, you'll raise my taxes another $5,000 so I'll be paying $20,000 a year for health care, some of which I won't even use, all so we can support the "free rider" problem caused by YOUR plan's faults.

Bad parents caused the high school shootings. There were already laws on the books disallowing children access to firearms. More laws aren't needed.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
Yes, now THAT was a happy, libertarian utopia as criminal mobs ruled the streets and innocents were killed for fun and profit.

Libertarians really fail to realize that's how it works with anarchy - it's not a Western movie of happy citizens peacefully co-existing, it's increasingly organized crime, going from the neighborhood, up to the city level, which increasingly wraps itself in the flag of legitimate government, as with the banana republics, just as Stalin and Saddam were 'elected'.

Libertarians cannot have the fantasy utopia they want; their only choices are our liberal democracy, or to destroy it and replace it with non-democratic oppression.

You mean like in contrast to your socialist fantasy utopia that believes that a single monolithic institution provides all the choices and services that a modern democracy needs?

:roll:

vic, as I have to respond so often, I have asked you many times not to read or respond to my post, and yet you rudely butt in to discussions where you are not wanted.

You pretty much every time lie about what I've said, about my positions, and I need say no more than that, rather than waste time correcting your reckless errors/lies.

But I could note you dodged the issue as usual.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
Yes, now THAT was a happy, libertarian utopia as criminal mobs ruled the streets and innocents were killed for fun and profit.

Libertarians really fail to realize that's how it works with anarchy - it's not a Western movie of happy citizens peacefully co-existing, it's increasingly organized crime, going from the neighborhood, up to the city level, which increasingly wraps itself in the flag of legitimate government, as with the banana republics, just as Stalin and Saddam were 'elected'.

Libertarians cannot have the fantasy utopia they want; their only choices are our liberal democracy, or to destroy it and replace it with non-democratic oppression.

You mean like in contrast to your socialist fantasy utopia that believes that a single monolithic institution provides all the choices and services that a modern democracy needs?

:roll:

vic, as I have to respond so often, I have asked you many times not to read or respond to my post, and yet you rudely butt in to discussions where you are not wanted.

Your sheer arrogance is astounding. It's not your board (you're not even a mod!), yet you presume to tell another member, who's been here many years longer, what he may/may not do. It's hardly a wonder you support the same types in gov't.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: ayabe
Nebor - It's fallacy to believe that having military grade weaponry protects you from government tyranny or that outlawing such weapons opens that door. The door is wide open regardless. If the gov wants to seize your property for failing to pay income tax or for eminent domain purposes, regardless of what weapons you have, you will lose your property.

The Branch Davidians had hardcore weapons and the government crushed them. The same would happen to you with or without your .50cal.

I don't see it as one -or a group- against the government. I always thought in terms of total national takeover/revolt where "the people" would rise against the government. That's when being well armed would come in handy.

It would also help if ever there was a catastrophic global or national disaster/crisis where people would have to fend (defend) for themselves for a good while.

Like the LA Riots where police withdrew and told citizens that they'd have to take care of themselves for a while. :thumbsup:

Yes, now THAT was a happy, libertarian utopia as criminal mobs ruled the streets and innocents were killed for fun and profit.

Libertarians really fail to realize that's how it works with anarchy - it's not a Western movie of happy citizens peacefully co-existing, it's increasingly organized crime, going from the neighborhood, up to the city level, which increasingly wraps itself in the flag of legitimate government, as with the banana republics, just as Stalin and Saddam were 'elected'.

Libertarians cannot have the fantasy utopia they want; their only choices are our liberal democracy, or to destroy it and replace it with non-democratic oppression.

I was thinking more of the video of the immigrant Korean store owners armed with 12-gauge shotguns killing some 15 criminals\looters. The people who weren't armed got fucked by the riots. The people who were armed... well, they're preparedness paid off.

You try to dissuade the forces of liberty by threatening authoritarianism, but your alternative is... authoritarianism. I'll try it my way, thanks.

Hint: the Koreans wouldn't last past the very first stages I described. How long do you think it'd take the crips or bloods or other gangs to kill the Koreans, shotguns or no?

It's only because the situation lasted for hours for the most part, where there was lower-hanging fruit for the criminals at first, that the Koreans had a temporary benefit.

Your system does not work. It's terrible for people.

p.s. I was very close to the LA Riots, I saw how things went. I knew the area a bit where they started and was not surprised.

Liberals try to reduce the number of poor, move them into the middle class, where things like that don't happen. Republicans ignore the problems and shoot the inevitable criminals.

The liberals have a far better off society, the republicans more poverty and violence. But both say they're the right system, the republicans by claiming the alternative to their system is totalitarianism under Stalin. Their system IS better than being put in Siberia under Stalin, if that were the alternative; it's their false ideology that keeps them so misguided. They're not arguing against liberals, they're arguing against the paranoid fantasies about liberals. No wonder they're so passionate about their views.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Craig234
Yes, now THAT was a happy, libertarian utopia as criminal mobs ruled the streets and innocents were killed for fun and profit.

Libertarians really fail to realize that's how it works with anarchy - it's not a Western movie of happy citizens peacefully co-existing, it's increasingly organized crime, going from the neighborhood, up to the city level, which increasingly wraps itself in the flag of legitimate government, as with the banana republics, just as Stalin and Saddam were 'elected'.

Libertarians cannot have the fantasy utopia they want; their only choices are our liberal democracy, or to destroy it and replace it with non-democratic oppression.

You mean like in contrast to your socialist fantasy utopia that believes that a single monolithic institution provides all the choices and services that a modern democracy needs?

:roll:

vic, as I have to respond so often, I have asked you many times not to read or respond to my post, and yet you rudely butt in to discussions where you are not wanted.

You pretty much every time lie about what I've said, about my positions, and I need say no more than that, rather than waste time correcting your reckless errors/lies.

But I could note you dodged the issue as usual.

You missed the point here, which is that your argument against libertarianism is no more valid or true than the one I facetitiously gave against socialism. It's amazing how you could both miss that obvious bit while at the same time so clearly expressing how have one's position be so grossly misrepresented makes one feel. And that's all you ever do here: misrepresent your opinions favorably while misrepresenting the opinions of others unfavorably. It's a form of intellectual dishonesty that I strongly despise, which is why I will always reply to your post whenever I feel like and there will never be anything you can about it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't want to force you to give if you don't want. I just want you to go live all by yourself in the jungle. I don't want my Mother to live in the jungle and I don't want yours to either. So even though I don't like to give, probably any more than you, I see it as a moral duty just like it's a moral duty not to kill. So if you don't want to voluntarily do your moral duty or can't see the wisdom of it then you should be punished for your anti social behavior just as if you killed, no. Giving is not an option, it's a moral imperative that separates humans from non social forms of life. We don't survive well alone so we have obligations and you don't get a free ride. You aren't a free rolling wheel, you are a spoke.

The problem is, one man's moral duty is another man's religious dogma. Why should your dogma be forced on anyone? The only 'obligation' is to not be a burden on others.

If you don't shoulder your burden you leave it to somebody else to carry. If you are going someplace because you have to to survive you either carry your share of get left behind. I don't want to take your option, just insure that what is fair be done.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Vic
Asimov said it best: "People mistake their own faults for those of society and then try to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves."

That's the motive behind world-saving. If the world-savers really felt the way they claim to feel about helping the less fortunate, they'd be out there DOING instead of in here talking about having other people (government) do it for them.

Exactly. I give to the United Way, and volunteer with AIN (AIDS Interfaith Network) and work with the local chapter of my college fraternity to run a holiday dinner for the homeless. So I care about the poor and the sick. I just cannot bring myself to force other people to care about them, and take money out of their pockets to do so.

I definitely agree with you Vic. :thumbsup:

That's very good. And if and only if you create sufficient social services out of goodness of your heart, then we can cut government social programs to offset your contribution.

No, those "services" aren't guaranteed, by me, or by the government, or anyone else. It's charity for a reason: it's not compulsory. You're trying to FORCE others to do what you want done. I'm not. I'm simply doing what I want done myself.

If Hillary gets elected and UHC gets passed, I'll start witholding taxes accordingly. I'll make a thread about it, and state how much I withheld. If they want that money bad enough to come kill me over it, then they can do it.

They are guaranteed because we elected people who voted to guarantee them. You can continue living in the utopia in your head. In the real world, the governing document of THIS country says:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Now, just because Republicans don't want to lay or collect taxes and stopped paying our country's debts, and are against providing for the general welfare, doesn't change the fact that the Congress has that Constitutional power. I suggest you take a government class instead of getting your interpretation of the Constitution in between erection pill ads on AM radio.
All I am saying is I don't have a preference for whether government or charities provide services, as long as they are provided.

Ah yes, the general welfare clause. Nothing like a blank check, eh comrade? Do you feel there is any limit to the federal government or are you one of those who believes general welfare and interstate commerce mean the feds can do anything they want?

It's not about what I feel, it's about what is written in the Constitution. You don't have to like it, but until you get an amendment passed to revoke it, the general welfare clause is in the constitution. The limit on the federal government aside from what is set by the Constitution is what we through our elected representatives limit it to doing. If you don't like UHC, vote for candidates who oppose it. But the argument that it's somehow unconstitutional holds no water. There are a lot of things that are constitutional that may be bad ideas, I happen to think UHC is not one of those things, you do. We both get a vote, and neither gets a veto.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
All I am saying is I don't have a preference for whether government or charities provide services, as long as they are provided.

All I'm saying is that when you say "government" you mean "someone other than myself." If you want those services provided, do your part to help, instead of trying to compel others to help, even if they don't want to.

Totally pathetic and predictable attempt at a personal attack. As a single childless renter making around 100K, I pay the highest combined tax rate while drawing the lowest benefits from it. So no it is not, "someone other than myself" and I want my tax dollars to pay for providing those services, not have them provided to me. And yes, I think everyone benefits from universal healthcare, and everyone should pay based on their ability (on a progressive scale), once it is voted in.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's not about what I feel, it's about what is written in the Constitution. You don't have to like it, but until you get an amendment passed to revoke it, the general welfare clause is in the constitution.

True, but I think you're reading WAY too much into that clause. I don't think the SCOTUS reads it nearly so broadly, but maybe you can prove me wrong.

 

[theeedude]

And BTW, we are already paying for universal healthcare at the ER through our health insurance premiums and also taxes, so unless you support turning people who don't have proof of ability to pay away from ERs to die, then you too are for universal healthcare! You are just dumb enough to be for universal healthcare at the place where it costs the most and at the time where it is least likely to produce a positive outcome. Only a completely retarded person would rather pay for someone to get healthcare at the ER when it becomes a real expensive emergency than pay for them to see a private practice doctor where you can catch things early and address them much cheaper.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's not about what I feel, it's about what is written in the Constitution. You don't have to like it, but until you get an amendment passed to revoke it, the general welfare clause is in the constitution.

True, but I think you're reading WAY too much into that clause. I don't think the SCOTUS reads it nearly so broadly, but maybe you can prove me wrong.

Why don't you prove yourself right instead.
SCOTUS has not overturned Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, or any other government healthcare program, as far as I know. You are going to tell me that universal healthcare for seniors is constitutional, but universal healthcare for everyone isn't? I'd like to see where that distinction is made in the Constitution.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
All I am saying is I don't have a preference for whether government or charities provide services, as long as they are provided.

All I'm saying is that when you say "government" you mean "someone other than myself." If you want those services provided, do your part to help, instead of trying to compel others to help, even if they don't want to.

Totally pathetic and predictable attempt at a personal attack. As a single childless renter making around 100K, I pay the highest combined tax rate while drawing the lowest benefits from it. So no it is not, "someone other than myself" and I want my tax dollars to pay for providing those services, not have them provided to me. And yes, I think everyone benefits from universal healthcare, and everyone should pay based on their ability (on a progressive scale), once it is voted in.

I'm also single but a multiple property owner making around 100k, so I also pay a shit ton of taxes. I attempt to mitigate that by making charitable donations and making all the deductions I can. By picking the charities of your choice, you can not pay that amount in taxes while CHOOSING where your dollars go. So how about you just do that instead of trying to force everyone else to choose the same charity (UHC) as you.

And how, exactly are we going to benefit from UHC? I can go to any doctor I want, have very low deductables, great dental, and vision (with generous tax-free discretionary funds for both,) totally covered emergency care, a $2M limit. So how is UHC going to be better for me?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Nebor


And where do I sign up for my .gov car insurance? Just because people should have something doesn't mean the government should provide it. People should have food, and a new pair of shoes from time to time, etc. There are a lot of things that people should have. And by all means, if you see someone without one of those things, and you can afford to, give it to them. But don't try to make other people give when they don't want to.

So if private company provides universal health care, you have no problem signing up? what's the difference anyway, do you just hate the government or something?

If your belief don't interfere with the majority, you can live anyway you want. But having no control on guns, especially high powered ones interfere with the majority. Easy access to gun contributed to the high school shootings, and help criminal commit crimes with guns. Having people left out of the UNC increases the cost for everyone when we have the moral responsibility to care for those who doesn't wanna pay.

Hey, I don't wanna pay tax too with a big portion of that going to Iraq war and government waste. But that's the price to pay for living in a civilized society and I realize if it's something I don't want, I need to go through democratic process to get rid of it.

I'm already a member of "universal healthcare." It's an insurance company to which I pay a "tax" (fee) in exchange for coverage if anything bad happens to me. Just like with the government this is a "public good." Ie: Many people pay into it, and everyone can draw benefits. The difference is, there are no "free riders" in my system. But since there is a limited number of people in my system, I accept the fact that I pay about $15,000 a year for health insurance. ANd if you people make ANOTHER system in which I'm mandatorily enrolled, you'll raise my taxes another $5,000 so I'll be paying $20,000 a year for health care, some of which I won't even use, all so we can support the "free rider" problem caused by YOUR plan's faults.

Bad parents caused the high school shootings. There were already laws on the books disallowing children access to firearms. More laws aren't needed.

I dunno who supports "ANOTHER" system for your to enroll. Most of the people including most of the 2008 Presidential Candidate only support mandatory health care coverage and not a mandatory "government" health care program coverage. As long as you have a coverage, private or government, you should be set.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Nebor

I'm also single but a multiple property owner making around 100k, so I also pay a shit ton of taxes. I attempt to mitigate that by making charitable donations and making all the deductions I can. By picking the charities of your choice, you can not pay that amount in taxes while CHOOSING where your dollars go. So how about you just do that instead of trying to force everyone else to choose the same charity (UHC) as you.

Well, one reason not to use charity as an alternative to the tax system is that it costs about 3 dollars spent on the charity for every dollar saved on taxes. Charity is spending that's two-thirds *in addition* to my tax bill. But you make an excellent argument for the return of the 90% tax bracket, when charitable giving can cost you only 10%.

Another reason, of course, is that it's simply ineffective for raising the funds society needs for these causes - as, once again I'll mention, the Articles of Confederation found.

And how, exactly are we going to benefit from UHC? I can go to any doctor I want, have very low deductables, great dental, and vision (with generous tax-free discretionary funds for both,) totally covered emergency care, a $2M limit. So how is UHC going to be better for me?

Maybe it won't; maybe the inflated *costs* of that nice care, the huge profits taken by the industry, will provide a savings that benefits you.

You might notice that the rest of the advanced world pays far, far less for the same thing than we pay. We're paying a huge premium for little to no benefit.

 

[palehorse]

OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

:roll:

Either you agree with Craig or you hate America. Sounds an awful lot like a Republican.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234
So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

:roll:

Either you agree with Craig or you hate America. Sounds an awful lot like a Republican.

No, it's one thing for you to tell others they agree with you or they hate America; it's quite another for you to point out that someone else has just said that if they have to spend one cent, or have one bit less care in any way, then they're against a change which would offer care to tens of millions who lack it now.

I didn't say he hates them - I merely pointed out what he said, that he has no concern at all (based on 1 cent being too much to spend) for those tens of millions getting health care.

But it does sound a lot like a republican.

 

[Vic]

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

That's not what it costs you if you include what your employer pays that could be in the paycheck part of your compensation instead of the benefit part.

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

Efficiency? US healthcare is the most inefficient in the world. We spend 50% more than the next guy to get outcomes that are on par with Cuba that spends 10x less.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse74
OK, screw it. Tell me:

1) Will UHC cost my family more than $225/month ($2700 per year)? (That's the price of my current family coverage that includes full medical, dental, and vision)

Are any of your costs subsidized by anyone else (say, the US taxpayer or an employer)?

2) Will the quality and/or efficiency of medical treatments, available to my family, be negatively impacted by UHC in any way?

Irrelevant question - impacted overall is relevant, one minor negative for some big positives would be a good tradeoff.

If the answer is "yes" to either of those questions, and I suspect it is, then I'd vote against it.

It's as simple as that.

So you care zero for the well being of tens of millions of fellow Americans, it's good you are clear on where your political values lie.

1) Doesn't matter who else pays. It's an out of pocket amount that it costs. However, it usually is a "benefit" and is factored into the "cost" of an employee. So in the end it is irrelevant if someone else pays - unless it is the gov't. In that case wouldn't it already be a form of socialized medicine?
2) So you are suggesting that it'd be OK for quality of care to go down?

I care about the well-being of those without INSURANCE. I want them to be able to have their own coverage - not some one size fits all UHC BS. I want them to be free from gov't control and decisions about their care. I want them to be able to seek the best care available - not some lackluster quality care because UHC lowered the bar.