Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Healthcare & the founding fathers

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 9:41

Oh gee, the founding fathers supported Socialized Healthcare.... Including the requirement to buy healthcare, of course they didn't have the tax breaks we have today...

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

the law itself

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798


Spread the word, because I want my fucking insurance exchange now!!!!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 9:51

no shit, there it is

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 10:20

This doesn't address the concern, even brought up in the first article, that the amount of tax required to maintain a health care system of that nature (for us, from scratch) would be tremendous and that many of these systems in other countries are discovering that better health care is increasingly expensive as time and technology roll on.

Call me crazy, but this actually sounded like an intent to protect port and population from the spread of disease by dissuading the intended carriers from being negligent, and a method for continuance of trade despite its own haphazard (at this time most "foreign trade" would mean at least a month or two out at sea devoted to just crossing an ocean).  The federal-run facilities were the bone for the seamen and shipping companies who would have the bulk of the burden and otherwise no reward for it, as well as to ensure that the purposes of the bill could be enacted (it even says, paraphrased, "in ports where no accommodations exist").

I like how the act itself is concise and yet is very clear that only the people who would willingly put themselves into a position to be affected by the law would be the ones to pay for it.  Even if it has since expanded erroneously to include normal income tax for funding, I like how it had been worded so as not to included unrelated parties.  Especially the  "Provided, that the moneys collected in any one district, shall be expended within the same" part.

(Only the first page of the law is showing for me; the image for the second is blank.)

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 10:34

>>3  

So just to review your saying that health insurance isn't a profitable or sustainable business...  Which is amazing that you might think that considering the record profits that the private health insurance companies make.

As for the tax issue, there weren't any income taxes at the time it was paid for by tariffs and "land sale"(cause them natives aint using it).

"Provided, that the moneys collected in any one district, shall be expended within the same"   what do you think insurance is!? Distributed risk!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 10:36

Provided, that the moneys collected in any one district, shall be expended within the same"

this actually furthers support for the state based exchanges over a single national one(which we all know would have been better)

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 11:18

>>5
Shut your dirty, socialist mouth you, you, SOCIALIST!!!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 11:57

>>4
Neither sustainability of the business nor its profitability are what I questioned; I questioned the ability to a single force powered by taxation being able to support the United States system as it grows.  In fact, the United States system is much more profitable for individuals in it, and provides more consistent coverage for as many people as can be accommodated, as it currently is than most of the centralized systems in Europe.  The problem is that for people who use the business-system, not those who work in it, though that does factor into it, both the better treatments being produced and the insurance required to mitigate liability of the professionals and institutions carrying them out are gargantuan and risk outstripping basic affordability.

Additionally, misunderstanding my previous point like that risks being interpreted as an attempt to shift the conversation into an alternate topic.

what do you think insurance is!? Distributed risk!
What does that have to do with anything?  the fact that anyone can get hurt and is then dependent on personally allocated or institutional health services is beyond question.  The law did not apply if you were not employed as a sailor, which is a reasonable choice that could be made, and no one who chose not to be a sailor had to manage (part of) the bill, or at least as it was stated.  In fact, you could stop being a sailor and find a different profession.  This is more like an additional port fee or customs fee.
Do you have a proposal for a current-day nationalized system that allows me to opt out, does not penalized me for opting out, does not penalize or burden any private system that wishes to operate alongside it?  Pending reading the actual proposal in writing, I will throw my hat behind such a plan.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 13:42

>>6
Oh. my. god.
He's a SOCIALIST?????
Quick, hide the spoons!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 14:21

People have already seen their premiums rise dramatically as a direct result of this bill being signed.
How, my SOCIALIST comrades, does this help the working man?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 14:44

>>9
Single payer would work a lot better, but then that's actual socialism, which is BAD. I heard it on Fox News.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 16:09

>>10
Yes, as is evidenced by the flood of people leaving America to get better treatment in nations that have socialized medicine...lol....see, thats' sarcasm, what I said right there..

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 16:27

>>7

You realize under the recently passed law, you'd have to be making at least $90,000 a year and not have insurance(from work or parents) and refuse to buy insurance before you would get fined.

Do you know the details?  If you make under 90,000 and don't have insurance you get tax credits & vouchers to buy it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 16:39

>>12
That's the thing.  I'm saying that because I never wanted any to begin with.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 17:05

>>13

either you should re-read 12, or your just an idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 17:25

>>14
no, he's a richfag who wants to refuse to buy insurance.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 17:42

>>14
your
>>15
-fag
Neither of you are contributing anything of intelligence to the discussion. /b/ effluent like you two belong there.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 17:44

>>16
fuck off.
your post said NOTHING relevant to the conversation, as opposed to both of ours.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 17:47

>>17
Seems like you forgot how to get back there, allow me: http://boards.4chan.org/b/

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 17:48

>>18
way to derail a thread. Is that the new propaganda tool?
What do YOU have against healthcare, hmmm???

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 17:49

>>19
What do YOU have against healthcare, hmmm???
Nothing. It's just discussing the issue with morons is where the problem lies.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 17:50

>>20
 well, don't get all butthurt just because someone called you out for being an oligarch.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 17:53

>>21
Oligarch? You can be lower middle class and still have a fucking brain by using it, which most people don't because apparently watching talking heads on Fox/MSNBC/other media channels is more convenient.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 18:05

No one is addressing the fact that EVERYONE'S PREMIUMS AND CO- PAYS ARE GOING THROUGH THE ROOF BECAUSE OF OBAMA'S BILL!

>>10 said single payer would be better, that, at least, is an admission that the bill that we now have IS SHIT!

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 18:25

>>23
an admission that the bill that we now have IS SHIT!
Pretty much this is common knowledge. Everyone from libertarians to progressives, (albeit for their own different reasons) said that the healthcare bill is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 21:52

>>24
So you admit Obama is a failure. That the Democrats have failed the American people. Again.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 22:02

>>25
He passed what he could, are you aware that he doesnt just get to wave a magical wand and that there is something called the congress? You should look in to thast. You can google it right now to see what it is. Give it a try, its easy to do!

The Republicans, when asked for a viable alternative could not even give a cohherent idea (kind of like when asked for specific tax cut proposals while on the campaign trail!). All they could do was howl and neuter the bill. Which is all that they can do anymore.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 22:10

>>26
LOL Dems controlled both Houses at the time.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-25 23:32

>>23


Derp Derp morons, the premiums aren't going up because of the Reform law, they're going up from corporate greed. The corps & lobbyist blame the Reform law, but there isn't anything in the law to cause it to go up(go read yourself).. Then go read the annual shareholders report for your favorite insurance company, then look up how much those execs take home... Don't buy into the corporate branding and lobbyist tag lines..  Learn something, educate yourselves.

    Reminds me of a friend turned tea bagger "the big corporations GIVE me things to BUY & WANT" I almost died laughing, way to sound like your from north Korea(yes yes the best Korea)...

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-26 10:13

>>28
No offense to your preferences in friends but he sounded like he was an idiot even before that ...

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-26 22:30

>>27

apparently you don't know of the filibuster senate rules, and the minority right to a single objection shoot down.  Watch C-span for a while.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-28 10:08

>>28
Insurance premiums are rising for the same reason that medical fees of all classes are rising many times faster than inflation:  distortion of supply and demand due to government intervention in what should be a free market.

Look.  It's really, really simple.  I will use small words with very few letters in them, so that even you can understand.

If you want to buy a tomato, you can go to your choice of competing supermarkets, and spend 50 cents on a bag of tomatoes.

But if suddenly one day the government decides that access to tomatoes is "a fundamental human right," and starts running up the national debt printing trillions of dollars of checks for free tomatoes, the demand for tomatoes goes up.  You go to the supermarket and find yourself standing in line behind fifty people all waving their million-dollar free-tomato checks in the air.  Do you suppose the tomatoes are going to get marked to a higher price?  If not, why not, given that the demand for them just increased tremendously and that the number of dollars in the economy devoted to chasing tomatoes has just gone up tremendously?

Medicare and Medicaid are not only unconstitutional, they have also driven the price of basic medical services into the stratosphere.  Compare the price of veterinary tumor removal surgery on a dairy cow and on a human being.  They use the same tools and the same technology, yet one costs $400 and one costs $400,000.

The government created the housing bubble by interfering in the real estate market and the banking business, pumping up demand and pumping money in as fast as the market could absorb it.  Government grants and loans are the reason why college tuition costs are going up by 20% a year and more, too.

Get the government out of the medicine business, out of the housing business, out of the banking business, and out of the education business, and you'll see these prices come down to match the demands in a free market.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-28 11:43

>>31
Free market is good and all, but how can it cope with problems like Information Asymmetry? Where the seller of a product often has more information than the buyer, thus cheating the buyer out of a decent/more adequate product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry

Which is also why there's things like the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson-Moss_Warranty_Act to help govern and regulate warranties on consumer products. Exactly how, in your opinion, would a truly free market be able to solve and cope with these problems WITHOUT any government regulation AT ALL?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-28 11:51

>>32
Free market = property rights, warranty = property.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-28 11:55

>>32
Information asymmetry
Information isn't free, those with the information should obtain the full market value of that information. This is something you communists don't understand, you think work is all about manual labor, it's not. How would the laborers know what to do and how to be productive if their managers did not work smart and figure it out?

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-28 12:11

>>33
Still needs a government in which to protect private property rights in cases of encroachment.

>>34
Information asymmetry is exactly one of the big reasons why lemon automobiles get sold, and is why there are lemon laws on the books. A person who has no idea about how an automobile works or any of its specific parts could easily be swayed into buying something that is essentially a piece of shit. New or used.

The rest of your post is full of teabagger hyperbole and needs not addressing, since it assumes that I desire to abolish the capitalist mode of production, when it is in fact, that true free market capitalism has no natural mechanism in dealing with situations like this.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-28 13:09

>>31
Medicare and Medicaid are not only unconstitutional
Necessary and Proper Clause could be made to dictate it Constitutional, though what's "necessary and proper" is highly subjective. This clause was used to justify the creation of the first central bank of the US, as argued by Hamilton. Essentially, anything could be argued to be Constitutional because of this clause.

Name: >>24 2011-01-28 14:21

>>25
>>24 here, that implies that I was in defense of Obama, to which I'm not and never really was. I'm not sure how well he did with other legislation, but with healthcare he obviously bombed on that, and unfortunately the healthcare bill was his biggest wager and it failed.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-28 19:37

Lord, no one here has ever gone into business....  I'll make it simple...

Free Market - A lie told to the poor to make it seem as if they have a choice in how they will be screwed out of money...

  Standard Oil is a perfect example of the "free market"

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-28 21:48

>>38
There are many people who were once poor, had a great idea, capitalized on it, and are now wealthy. The free market allows for this.

This would never happen in a centrally controlled economy. People in communist countries never have this opportunity.

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-29 15:28

>>38
State planning would be worse because then they would have no choice, except at this point there is no turning back and regretting your decisions to become a marxtard because it will be too late, the state is in complete control over the economy and thus your life and freedom.

This is what you communists fail to understand, the only reason capitalism looks bad is because it's more difficult to hide corruption under capitalism. You're such tools.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List