107 replies to this topic

[iargue]

Don't you think men should have to pay that extra charge aswell,
because they're the ones helping to make these babies in the first place? Besides, not all women have children, so why should one be charged more just because she has the ability to have a child when she might not.

And unfortunately, most insurance carriers wont cover a home birth/low tech birth becase 1. they don't like the risk involved 2. they dont like you taking money away from the hospitals to begin with.

What about the millions of artificial insemination pregnancies? Are the men liable for that?

Or the hundreds of thousands of stupid teenage girls who fail to use condoms, am I supposed to pay for that, given that I always use one?

Good plan!



Isn't that obvious from the context?

Anyone can do a sprint, can you run the marathon?

30 years later I'll easy beat you. I've only been working for 7 years and already half way there.

When I created this thread, I didn't expect it to collapse into a dick waving contest so quickly.

This is my last post here unless someone starts meaningful discussion.

I was extremely disappointed with the ruling that mandatory healthcare is legal. Its a scary prescient when its okay to force people to do things. Entirely against our whole "This country is free" bullshit. Everyone is promoting this as a good thing, while ignoring the implications that it has. What if tomorrow they pass a law that forces us to all pay for cable. Or next year they pass a law that requires everyone to have home owners insurance

The founding fathers formed this country so no one would be forced to do something.

Edited by iargue, 29 June 2012 - 09:16 AM.

[Bone]

What about the millions of artificial insemination pregnancies? Are the men liable for that?

The amount of women who go through artificial insemination on their own is negligible.

Or the hundreds of thousands of stupid teenage girls who fail to use condoms, am I supposed to pay for that, given that I always use one?

I said I was done but wow. If you're saying men shouldn't be held responsible for not using condoms, you need a reality check. If you're only referring to yourself, you're missing the point.

[Waser Lave]

I was extremely disappointed with the ruling that mandatory healthcare is legal. Its a scary prescient when its okay to force people to do things. Entirely against our whole "This country is free" bullshit. Everyone is promoting this as a good thing, while ignoring the implications that it has. What if tomorrow they pass a law that forces us to all pay for cable. Or next year they pass a law that requires everyone to have home owners insurance

The founding fathers formed this country so no one would be forced to do something.

They already have laws that say people have to do certain things, paying taxes is one example of that. They have laws against murder that force people to not kill other people no matter how annoying they are etc (most, if not all, laws are there to force people to either do something or not do something).

[iargue]

They already have laws that say people have to do certain things, paying taxes is one example of that. They have laws against murder that force people to not kill other people no matter how annoying they are etc (most, if not all, laws are there to force people to either do something or not do something).

Name a law that forces you to do something that doesn't involve another person?

[Senrath]

Having to have car insurance or pay a fee?

[Waser Lave]

Name a law that forces you to do something that doesn't involve another person?

Paying taxes, molesting goats, speeding, jacking it in San Diego, suicide etc.

[Zildjian]

Health insurance does involve other people.

[ElBastardoVerde]

We pay through taxes for the hospitals.

I think insurance companies seriously need to look at how much hospitals are charging for random shit these days. I don't exactly remember where I read it, but apparently a woman was charged $100 for a single box of tissues. There was another case where two (2) aspirin cost a lady $16. Hospitals are notorious for jacking up the prices on everything they have. An ambulance ride has a flat price (somewhere between $500-$2000) + mileage. How fucking ridiculous is that? You could take a limo to the hospital and save money -.-

I can't say too much though, I'm still a military dependent and I only go to military hospitals. TriCare is a wonderful thing to have. They pay for everything no problem, and if a doctor decides a person's quality of life is being affected by something minor, elective/plastic surgery is paid for as well.

My ex girlfriend's sister actually got away with fraud. She was able to get a free breast enlargement surgery because she talked the doctor into saying her tiny boobs were affecting her quality of life. Bullshit, huh?

[iargue]

Having to have car insurance or pay a fee?

You do not have to have car insurance for yourself. the requirement is that you can pay for the person that you hit, and the medical bills that comes from it. You must be able to cover the cost of damaging another persons life, not your own.

Paying taxes, molesting goats, speeding, jacking it in San Diego, suicide etc.

The saying is "There are two things you can expect in life: Paying taxes, and death". Taxes has existed since the beginning of time, and will most likely always exist. It is not something that is avoidable if you wish to have a government.

Molesting goats is legal where I am, and that still involves another person if you listen to Peta. Speeding endangers other people's lives, You cannot be punished for suicide, and jacking it in public involves other people.

[ElBastardoVerde]

You do not have to have car insurance for yourself. the requirement is that you can pay for the person that you hit, and the medical bills that comes from it. You must be able to cover the cost of damaging another persons life, not your own.

I'm a derp, nvm.

Edited by destruct, 29 June 2012 - 10:18 AM.

[Sweeney]

In Texas, it's a requirement to have at LEAST liability coverage on your vehicle or you get a hefty fine/revoked license.

I don't think you read what he wrote.

[Waser Lave]

The saying is "There are two things you can expect in life: Paying taxes, and death". Taxes has existed since the beginning of time, and will most likely always exist. It is not something that is avoidable if you wish to have a government.

Molesting goats is legal where I am, and that still involves another person if you listen to Peta. Speeding endangers other people's lives, You cannot be punished for suicide, and jacking it in public involves other people.

Paying taxes is a law which doesn't involve other people as you asked me to provide. I don't listen to PETA. It's as illegal to speed on an empty road as it is to speed on a busy road. Suicide is against the law in many countries. I'm pretty sure you'd also getting arrested it for jacking it in San Diego in a public place even when there's nobody else around.

[iargue]

I don't think you read what he wrote.

No no, I just didn't express myself correctly. Wheres coltom to tell me what I had truly meant when I had typed. I'm sure one or two of the adjectives that I used were irrelevant.

[ElBastardoVerde]

I don't think you read what he wrote.

Yeah, upon second inspection you're right.

[iargue]

Paying taxes is a law which doesn't involve other people as you asked me to provide. I don't listen to PETA. It's as illegal to speed on an empty road as it is to speed on a busy road. Suicide is against the law in many countries. I'm pretty sure you'd also getting arrested it for jacking it in San Diego in a public place even when there's nobody else around.

To be arrested for speeding, there has to be someone else around.
And to be arrested for jacking it in San Diego there would have to be someone else around

Plus, paying taxes does involve other people. The taxes that you pay provides the roads you drive on, the school you attended (and for you, the health insurance you get right?) it also pays for military and police protection. All of these things are a service provided for you that you are paying for. You are more then welcome to move to an island and stop paying taxes, but if you want to own land within their protected lands, you will have to pay them for that land.

[WharfRat]

This thread turned out to be a lot of garbage... I only have a few things to say. I'm very happy for America and for this decision and I think that this will benefit this country greatly. I am also a little surprised by how few people in this country understand the concept of judicial restraint.

As to the long argument that has just occurred I only have a few comments.

1) Although I also thought the original syntax was a bit strange, the meaning was pretty self evident.
2) Reference the quote below:

A doctor goes to law school for 8 years, and has over 100,000 dollars of debt when they leave *BLAHBLAHBLAH*

I'm confused... Why is a doctor going to law school?
3) As to the argument about laws regarding individual freedom... I can understand the point you are trying to make. However, I have long felt similarly about programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I don't have a choice to opt out of those programs and I have yet to hear anyone holler about how it is "Unconstitutional!"
4) There are plenty of laws that do effect an individuals actions without regard to another person. A great example of this is the "War on Drugs." An American cannot grow a plant in their own backyard and/or smoke it without the risk of going to jail. An American woman, in the entrepreneurial spirit, cannot offer to sell her time and labor to a man by performing sex acts. (While this does technically involve another person, any possible downfalls to society can easily be eradicated through effective preventive care and testing.)

(My overall point for items 3 and 4 is that you do have to pay for shit you do not want/will not use in America. That's just the way it is. To argue that it's unconstitutional is absurdity at best.)

[luvsmyncis]

3) As to the argument about laws regarding individual freedom... I can understand the point you are trying to make. However, I have long felt similarly about programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I don't have a choice to opt out of those programs and I have yet to hear anyone holler about how it is "Unconstitutional!"

THANK YOU. We're already paying for the benefits of the poor and the old. Time for everyone to start paying for shit that benefits EVERYONE.

As for the women having to pay more, yeah it kind of sucks, but guess what. Your annual exams and birth control will be free. That is fucking amazing, and a huge step in women's health and controlling the abysmal number of unwanted pregnancies that happen in this country.

[iargue]

This thread turned out to be a lot of garbage... I only have a few things to say. I'm very happy for America and for this decision and I think that this will benefit this country greatly. I am also a little surprised by how few people in this country understand the concept of judicial restraint.

As to the long argument that has just occurred I only have a few comments.

1) Although I also thought the original syntax was a bit strange, the meaning was pretty self evident.
2) Reference the quote below:


I'm confused... Why is a doctor going to law school?
3) As to the argument about laws regarding individual freedom... I can understand the point you are trying to make. However, I have long felt similarly about programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I don't have a choice to opt out of those programs and I have yet to hear anyone holler about how it is "Unconstitutional!"
4) There are plenty of laws that do effect an individuals actions without regard to another person. A great example of this is the "War on Drugs." An American cannot grow a plant in their own backyard and/or smoke it without the risk of going to jail. An American woman, in the entrepreneurial spirit, cannot offer to sell her time and labor to a man by performing sex acts. (While this does technically involve another person, any possible downfalls to society can easily be eradicated through effective preventive care and testing.)

(My overall point for items 3 and 4 is that you do have to pay for shit you do not want/will not use in America. That's just the way it is. To argue that it's unconstitutional is absurdity at best.)

So I said law school when I meant med school, sue me.

For your points.

3)Those are all taxes that you speak of. We are paying the government, not a third party corporation. They name it something else, but its a tax, used to provide a service by the government.
4) Drugs harm other people. Deny it all you want, but there are enough drug related deaths to justify their ban. The millions of people who have lost loved ones to drugs will agree completely. Even if you grow it for personal use, and only smoke it yourself, you still pose a danger to others.

[redlion]

So many black and white viewpoints. Everything is a shade of grey.

Health care is mandated in most industrialized nations. Single payer systems save millions of lives, leading to lower infant mortality, lower birth rates (ironically a good thing) and higher life expectancy.

The US "Obamacare" mandate isn't even a mandate. It's a half step. Over the next 8 years the bill's provisions will insure 30 million people previously uninsured. That's 3,750,000 people every year that will get a tetanus shot if they step on a nail. Or a regular physical to screen for preventable/treatable conditions and diseases. But (and here's the grey part) the US will still have 25 million more uninsured citizens after Obamacare takes full effect.

We're the third most populous country on earth, the richest, one of the most free, most happy, and yet, almost 8 percent of our population will be uninsured in the year 2020. For comparison, that's higher than our historical unemployment rate, and almost as high as our current unemployment rate. (see spoiler for more info)

I can't see the downside, really, when we could have done much better. This is a glass half full situation.

Spoiler

Below is a graph plotting the monthly unemployment rates for the past 62 years, starting in 1950. The lowest trough occurred in May/June of 1953 at 2.5 percent, which quickly rebounded as Korean War troopers came home. The highest peak occurred in 1983, at 10.8 official unemployment. This occurred during 11 months of over 10 percent unemployment.

For comparison, the late 2000s shock that Obama inherited took us from a steady 4.7 to a volatile, over 9 percent level. We briefly hit 10 percent in October of 2009. We've been slowly easing back from the edge, but with a current level at 8.2 percent, we're still well above our historical range of 5-7.5 percent.



Also worth noting is the period between 1964 and 1970 when our unemployment rate stayed well below 5 percent, averaging around 4.19. This coincided largely with the US involvement in SE Asia. The Vietnam War: America's dirty little secret to maximize employment, consumption, production and military research all in one go.

For more info on unemployment you can check out the Bureau of of Labor Statistics page here. I ran the LNS14000000 survey, Unemployment Rate in the Civilian Labor Force.

[Waser Lave]

Health care is mandated in most industrialized nations. Single payer systems save millions of lives, leading to lower infant mortality, lower birth rates (ironically a good thing) and higher life expectancy.

The US "Obamacare" mandate isn't even a mandate. It's a half step. Over the next 8 years the bill's provisions will insure 30 million people previously uninsured. That's 3,750,000 people every year that will get a tetanus shot if they step on a nail. Or a regular physical to screen for preventable/treatable conditions and diseases. But (and here's the grey part) the US will still have 25 million more uninsured citizens after Obamacare takes full effect.

We're the third most populous country on earth, the richest, one of the most free, most happy, and yet, almost 8 percent of our population will be uninsured in the year 2020. For comparison, that's higher than our historical unemployment rate, and almost as high as our current unemployment rate. (see spoiler for more info)

I think I'd be pretty confident in saying that most of the rest of the developed world thinks that America's current healthcare system is a joke when compared to many of those found throughout Europe, for example. I think last time I checked several European countries had nationalised healthcare systems which actually worked out cheaper than the system America already has while also having lower child mortality rates, higher life expectancy etc so we can't really understand why America doesn't follow suit given the clear benefits.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8201711.stm

That's from about 3 years ago but I'd imagine it's still largely accurate.

[Bone]

I think I'd be pretty confident in saying that most of the rest of the developed world thinks that America's current healthcare system is a joke when compared to many of those found throughout Europe, for example. I think last time I checked several European countries had nationalised healthcare systems which actually worked out cheaper than the system America already has while also having lower child mortality rates, higher life expectancy etc so we can't really understand why America doesn't follow suit given the clear benefits.

Because the current system allows the elite to have the best (and ludicrously expensive and frivolous) care in the world?

[Waser Lave]

Because the current system allows the elite to have the best (and ludicrously expensive and frivolous) care in the world?

Not really, the main problem is how unaffordable health care is to the majority of people. If the elite want to have the best care in the world and pay for it then that's fine as long as everybody else has access to affordable and good quality of health care too. To me it seems like the US health care system only exists in its current form in order to make huge amounts of profit for insurance companies while making those actually in need unable to access it. Somehow they've also managed to make a large proportion of the people who would benefit from a nationalised system turn against the concept because it would be too 'socialist'...I find that impressive and horrifying in equal measure.