Printable View
Didn't Ayn Rand herself say that one should take advantage of every government benefit possible, even if they should all be eliminated ultimately?
The idea was that you're looking out for your own self-interest and technically getting back your taxes anyway.
The first, yes. The second, no.Quote:
A fraudster or just a hypocrite?
https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/...ryptkeeper.gif
Ayn Rand is not part of my self-interest, so I do not care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The point about being a hypocrite was that when you think society shouldn't foot the bill, yet unload it onto others because you cannot pay, well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
As for self-interest, it is the reason insurance exists. People who can think further than the tip of their own nose realize that they may not be able to pay a huge bill one day so they share the risk with others. There is no huge necessity for altruism.
Ron Paul is a doctor himself and if I remember correctly he had some specific ideas for health care reform, but I can't remember what they are and I'm guessing his campaign website is now defunct. I think a lot of his ideas hinged on charities helping out the less fortunate with their medical bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Socialism by bad conscience? Or simply an incredibly unreliable insurance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
I think it was "They should work for cheaper" and he apparently offers a lowish rate and sometimes does free work. Don't quote me on that, would need to googlefu to confirm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Made my day, cheers :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The latter, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I know, I was just saying that they are not exactly coherent or respectable either unless you find being a parasite who says people should be self-sufficient very respectable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I thought I managed to make my views on the wider issue somewhat clear as well.
Evolutionary speaking working only for, by and with yourself would probably fit the lizard brain or people who are in a constant state of animalistic panic and do not use the more advanced parts of their brain. If you exist somewhere beyond the evolutionary step of monkeys you should be a herd animal and see the value of cooperation. :sweatdrop:
I never heard of a part of our brain called the tiger brain that could make us successful loners.
The guy had a pre-existing condition, a un-named"blood disorder" and died from pneumonia. Kinda sounds like HIV to me. But we're both talking about a dead man and trying to attribute motives that we neither know nor understand. We should probably stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
You don't inherit debt. Debts are paid from the deceased's estate. If there isn't enough value in the estate to cover it... the lender takes a haircut. The only way she could be "left with his debts" is if she was the payer in the first place. In which case, they were her debts all along.Quote:
Noting that the essential supporter of a libertarian candidate died of preventable causes, uninsured, leaving his mom with $400k in medical bills, is somehow off-limits? Please.
Lastly, I'd like to address the hypocrisy accusation over people who take tax deductions they aren't in favor of or receive benefits from programs that they don't like the structure of.....
I don't have a mortgage, but you can bet I'd take the tax deduction if I did. Also, if Social Security is still paying out when I'm old enough to get benefits- I will most certainly take any benefits that I am eligible for. I don't think Social Security is sustainable as it's currently constituted, nor do I think it is a good investment. Were I to take the 12% of my income the federal government is taking from me and invest it into an IRA- I could get a much better ROI than I will get thru Social Security. That does not change the fact that the government has been taking 12% of my income for this program my entire working life. Therefore, if I get the chance to get any of that money back- I'm going to take it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Not it is not a valid way of life: taking your previous post before I replied literally we are dealing with plain and simple theft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The Inuit used to push that kind of folk off the nearest convenient ice sheet, just to be rid of them, for a good reason: in their extreme situation, such people who defrauded the community of scarce resources were a plain and simple threat to the continued survival of the whole community.
Such a way of life is nothing but a trail of destruction, which innocent people will have to repair.
Other words for the same class of people: frauds, thieves, hustlers, conmen, scammers, mediums.
Is that why you are allowed to shoot people in the back if they run away with your TV?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You just said theft is your mission statement....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I think so, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
My point was that if theft is your mission statement then it makes little sense to shoot people for theft. Or maybe it just makes little sense to claim that theft is your mission statement when you shoot people for theft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Whether this has anything to do with you personally is beside the point.
To jump off of topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Depends on the jurisdiction. In my jurisdiction, you might be arrested for shooting a thief who is running away, but since you are shooting to end the commission of - likely - burglary, you may win that case. Personally, I am not interested in shooting people for theft. I am ok with shooting someone who enters your home illegally for any reason whatsoever, as they don't tend to come in with a business card letting you know of their intentions. You are left to guess. Even if they did, you would then be trusting the word of someone intent to harm you physically and/or financially, so how you'd come to the conclusion that they are trustworthy is anybody's guess. In this situation, I will shoot to eliminate the threat, by incapacitating the criminal and stopping the crime. Shoot center mass, multiple times, with as much ballistic stopping power as possible. Light detached from gun at night as it makes the light source (you) a target. Do not leave your room unless you have other people in the house to protect. This is my plan of action. It will effectively insulate me from having to shoot someone for burglarizing my home, which I would rather not do even though I would be legally justified in doing so, and ensures that lethal force is only used when the personal safety of myself and my wife are at risk in our bedroom.
You can kill with a .22. The point is not to kill, but to stop.
Back on topic
The type of "fraud" that the late individual was guilty of was not fraud in the true sense. It was merely one man refusing to pay a bill which was unconscionably high. You wouldn't charge him with fraud, you (as the provider) would enter litigation to sue him for services rendered unpaid. If the taxpayer or insured's are kind enough to extend credit to him unsolicited, that is their own kindness/foolishness. The coldly bureaucratic arguments which suggest that people should be hauled off for insulting the thought police or daring not to purchase a product which is optional and wildly overpriced is just vacuous, hyperbolic, claptrap. All valid political beliefs for a German to hold, at any given point in history.
My friend died from almost exactly the same thing. Healthy, fit as a fiddle, just bought a BMW, started job with a new firm as a financial analyst in Manhattan (at 24 years old) , 95k per year, met a girl. He began complaining of chest pain on Friday night, was dead by 1 pm the next day in a hospital in the NY metropolitan area. Fully insured, Cadillac plan, asymptomatic up to 24 hours prior. Some childhood anemia diagnosis which never gave him a problem, coupled with walking pneumonia was the cause of his total body toxicity and organ failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I don't mind that Lemur is vilifying and using as political cudgel a man who died from a serious form of pneumonia who happened, also,to refuse to buy into the absolutely broken medical insurance system; but I'm not sure that it is the kind of argument that someone who wasn't solely trying to rationalize his own tacky argument would continue to make. It's ok to back down sometimes - or to press on instead, like the reasonable moderate who never backs down from firmly held positions which lampoon the "right" that he is.
This sentence is kinda beautiful. It's like a serpent eating its own tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I haven't brought up the subject of your high dudgeon in about a day and a half, so by all means, keep going back to that well.
As a governing philosophy, libertarianism is exactly as realistic as communism. Both suffer from good intentions and starry-eyed idealism, neither works once you scale past the family level. The similarities between the two are quite striking.
Note the mushiness and emptiness of the libertarian answers to our troubled healthcare system. Note the real-world consequences of this sort of adolescent thinking, and the hostility its acolytes express when confronted with same.
Much like communism, libertarianism can never be wrong, because it is a complete, perfect theory. It can only be misapplied or misunderstood.
Feh.
Please reread the original post of Gelatinous Cube. Being fully aware of the consequences, i.e. being fully aware of (at least the order of) the magnitude of the bill prior to deciding to consume the service anyway implies something else, something much less benign than a simple conflict over costs. What it would imply is a cynical exploitation of the assumption that people pay their bills: instead of making sure you, or your insurer, could pay your hospital bill you would bank on the fact that you would be treated first and only asked to pay later so you could then claim to be unable to and leave the hospital and by extension everyone else with costs. In the meantime you of course enjoyed the fact that you never paid an insurance bill. I.e. you are free riding, or mooching, or sucking the teat of society or whatever welfare queen type analogy you'd care to make. Quite the cynical interpretation of the chain of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Alternatively, the man did not know or appreciate the consequences of the stupidity of his own dogma nor of the limits of that dogma.
Libertarianism doesn't work because we want things that none of us can afford for ourselves by ourselves alone. It also doesn't work because it doesn't scale, as Lemur pointed out. The welfare state is not, in fact, a modern chain of ever more entitlements being paid for by hard working tax payers. The welfare state is the result of people trying the libertarian and charity approach and finding it wanting. It is the most efficient and most realistic option you have at eradicating absolute poverty, malnutrition, and providing education, basic healthcare etc. through economies of scale and the fact that the reach of the programme is nationwide so even the most backwards poverty stricken regions can benefit from the economic successes of the wider nation.
You sure you want the health industry to only accept payments in advance and that they always stop the treatment if things get more expensive than expected? Companies are usually neither openly kind or foolish you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
... Point 2 openly contradict their own goal (it's on the top of the page) and point 3 is in lala land when it comes to medical safety. I'll be very surprised if they do know the origin of FDA and are aware on what type of corruption scandals FDA has been involved in (hint, getting disaproval on a dangerous, non-funtional drug is still as expensive as getting an approval on a functional one).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I haven't red it in full, but the description of John Galt land have struck me as pretty close to a communist ideal (From each according to his ability, to each according to his need), only inhabitated by supermen, all with very high abillities, with a thin capitalistic veil to cover it up. Not sure if the impression changes by a detailed description.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Not really. We do believe that such a vital (since when is healthcare considered optional?) product should not be overpriced in the first place. It may be true that the lender has a problem if the customer does not pay but that does not justify the actions of the customer at all. If you want a community where fooling others and not paying bills is perfectly acceptable then you may have to buy your own island, because clearly most people don't want that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
And who mentioned hauling people off? Are you making things up now?
Libertarianism is equal in it's utopian absurdity to Communism? Libertarian is the opposite of Communism. Where communism is revolutionary in eliminating individual rights, libertarianism is an erosion of the demands of government. Libertarianism, in my application of it, is focused on peeling the stranglehold of statism off of our necks, finger by finger.
(A guy was just arrested in upstate NY. His license was suspended because his wife failed to pay a speeding ticket, which he had no idea about - he was then questioned about weapons. They saw his licensed carry handgun, checked the mag and -oh my God!- the 10 round mag had 9 rounds in it! He was charged with a misdemeanor under the brand new safe act which requires all 10 round mags to have only 7 rounds in them. The misdemeanor charge caused the licensing bureau to revoke his permit as a matter of course, unconnected to the Safe act. Swat was sent to his home to secure all firearms and seize them, ending his right to keep and bear arms forever) - this is the effect of stupid laws. They cascade and funnel into other badly applied laws making for an awful system of arbitrary law, which few understand and even fewer respect. The national legal system is a disgrace, enacted by people long ago, who have no right to govern me or you from their ignorant graves. Our system needs to be cleaned up everywhere, no with new text, but by eliminating codes and cleaning up the good ones.
Lemur, you are equating libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians are not anarchists generally. They believe in some degree of government, just much less than currently exists. You misunderstand it basically, and it shows in your own political philosophy. Husar - you recognize that healthcare is important, as do I. You are suggesting that command control of the health care system effectively "controls" prices. Do you really believe this? Why shouldn't the government also control food production and determine pricing, among many other things?
So, the numbers have leaked out about healthcare.gov's launch day. CBS reports:
Six enrollments, huh? I can see why the White House wasn't too eager to talk about the numbers on this one....Quote:
The website launched on a Tuesday. Publicly, the government said there were 4.7 million unique visits in the first 24 hours. But at a meeting Wednesday morning, the war room notes say "six enrollments have occurred so far."
ICSD, what I do not approve is that you think your current laws in the US have anything to do with a sane democratic system, remember that the USA are exceptional. So just because you do not like your particular laws there is no reason to think that government is a bad thing in general by taking the example of a country that sees itself as an exception anyway.
What I do like and find quite funny is this:
So the next time someone brings up the founding fathers in a gun or any other debate I may bring this up. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
As for which markets the government should dabble with: the ones that do not work.
Markets cannot work for example when there is an information imbalance where for example the sellers know far more about their product than the customers. Take food ingredients for example, I could spend months trying to figure out what is in the food I buy, it's a good thing when producers are forced to print it onto the package so I can make a better decision about what food to buy. Generally the food market is different from the healthcare market however because of the nature of the product. With healthcare it's often hard to choose a different supplier, if you're about to bleed out you probably won't choose a hospiteal 200 miles away simply because they offer more new blood for a buck. When you consult a doctor you cannot usually rate the quality of his diagnosis as easily as you can rate the quality of a liter of milk. You also cannot return a service easily if it is broken. Furthermore there is a difference between needing a certain medicine without which you will die and needing kaviar, which is a purely optional food. The healthcare market is supposed to make people healthy but the suppliers actually make money and profit with people who are not healthy, if you deregulate the market completely, what will stop companies from trying to introduce medicine that is addictive or makes people healthy slower than it could so they have to take more? Some of this is done in the food industry as well but it's still easier for the customer to make a somewhat informed decision there.
No "true" communist, libertarian, or Marxist. Actual anarchies have been short-lived and quickly replaced. True democracies have been tried and found wanting at anything past the large town level.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
The only forms of government to rack up any real tenure have been: Oligarchic Republics (Roman Republic, Pre 1850 England), Democratic Republics (UK, USA, numerous others since), and Despotisms (Dictatorships, Monarchies, Imperial Bureaucracies, Warlordism).
Of these, A Democratic Republic comes closest to Libertarianism.
I agree with this. I am not saying that there should be a revolution, but major revisions to our legal system and the way in which we conduct our affairs. I believe in the idea of a Democratic Republic as the best guardian of a libertarian agenda. I merely seek to undo the endless growth of the power of the State over the individual to make his or her own decisions. Where Obamacare seeks to strike a better balance for individual rights I applaud it. I am not against all forms of collectivism, such as insurance for major catastrophe, but the plan of this administration is unreal in it's application and their talent at governing is telling by their failures here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The United States would have been better served if the administration had spent less focus trying to disarm and shame lawful gun owners and more time doing everything it could to help better vet the new healthcare system.
Regarding my assertion that old, dead ancestors have no right to tell me how to live strengthens the bill of rights. It is a document that tells government to cram it and leave us alone. I like all laws which restrict government actions against the people, few which restrict the individual.
Look at what happened this week, the NYC government has defamed a judge who legitimately judged stop and frisk to diminish the rights reserved against unreasonable search and seizure - and the government has had her taken off of the case and then frantically stacked the bench with patsies who are beholden to government. We are in hostile territory, we need to tear these laws apart through constant disruption.
We imprison people for long periods of time with dangerous felons for smoking wacky tobacky. Libertarianism is needed desperately in this country. We are focused on the wrong things and doing everything we can to gut equal protection and the rights of citizens.
I don't care about Obamacare. As I have stated in the past - the health system which we are shackled with is an abomination, if Obamacare ruined it it wouldn't be the worst thing. Unfortunately, this admin is inept at fixing a problem. His attempts are worthy of scorn and any plans to make our system worse should be resisted. All I have seen so far is worse.
I disagree with the naming and such here. United States is more of an exception, but leads the Constitution/Democratic Republics whilst various Commonwealth countries and Europe are mostly Social-Democracies. USA in particular has that special very limited government and wants less, in comparison to those with strong welfare states and national health services. Not to say there isn't Social-Democracy interest in the United States, it is very tame compared to elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
What? They're not doing that already?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Don't you find it odd that you think a democratically elected government can force companies to behave on the electorate's behalf, but the electorate itself can't force the change? If a majority of people want ingredients on food labeling, they vote for representatives that will enact the regulation. But, if a majority of people want ingredients on food labeling, can't they accomplish the same thing by buying from suppliers that do so? If it's important, it'll drive sales. If it drives sales, all suppliers will be doing it in short order.
Look at the explosion of organic food stupidity if you need an example. People are willing to pay 3x as much for a banana because it's "organic", as though other bananas are "inorganic". Therefore, you can't find a grocery store that doesn't stock them. :yes:
"Social" in social democracy refers to the political direction, rather than the political structure. Seamus was only describing political structures. A democratic republic can lean in any way it wants depending on the present government, but as long as its structures are in that form, it is still a democratic republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
It's easier for a customer to push for changes in a food market than for said customer to push for changes in something as large scale as healthcare. See the problems your country is having on the subject. Something on the scale of healthcare requires large scale concerted action, which means driven by the government, or it doesn't happen at all and the status quo more or less persists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The American health care system needed some form of intervention. Market forces were not working because the system wasn't designed with those in mind. I am all for something being done to open it up to greater consumer choices with tax incentives to do so. The tax incentives should be present as a recognition that choices made regarding ones own health can be made under duress and that healthcare is a different ballgame than car and home insurance. I'm not looking for home tax deductions, I believe that those are unethical. I want to see lower taxes across the board and and end to most tax write-offs of everything other than health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Writing off your home? deleted. renters shouldn't be punished with higher taxes because you own a home. Writing off your education? deleted. Individuals are held back by the system of higher education grants which encourage irresponsible education over local community, commuter and online education. HSA's for everyone, because the money that we spend on most healthcare should be our own and it shouldn't be handicapped by government. Lower taxes for everyone, but cut the cuts.
This article in Bloomberg seems to suggest that High deductible plans are becoming the expected norm. THis would be fine, just as long as we have a way to pay for our co-pays, co-insurance without being taxed and saving our money in an IRA like account. OPEN US THE HSA program to everyone at slightly lower amounts and mandate that employers set them up.