Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing

[wgerrard]

Bob, my annual health insurance cost -- to me -- is approximately 40 percent of my annual Federal income tax cost.

However, the actual cost is significantly higher. I'm a member of a group policy and my former employer pays the majority of the premium. So, the real cost of my health insurance is more than my annual tax bill.

Americans who cannot buy into a group policy must instead pay the full premium. As a result, many Americans monthly health insurance premium is bigger than their monthly house payment. And, of course, many just can't afford the insurance.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

how do you suggest feeding these people? $7 an hour at walmart doesn't do it. And given that Americans would rather die than have to help their fellow man through government support programs for those the 'economy' has decided are worthless

Today's "Capitalism" is Feudalism's wet dream: the Banks run a "diversified" Company Store, and property (along with virtual property) is still King. The best way to create wealth is by increasing poverty.

One way to accomplish this is by fomenting a "who cares!" mentality in tandem with reduced expectations in education.

That, and I like pie 😉

 

[Paul T.]

After the loss the party pretty much spit on her so now, hence 'Going Rouge'

Sarah Palin has joined the Reds? I know she's an unprincipled opportunist, but I never saw that one coming.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Sarah Palin has joined the Reds? I know she's an unprincipled opportunist, but I never saw that one coming.

Surely you've heard she went Rouge :angel:

 

[gb hill]

Bill, if you go live in a cabin in Alaska, you will have to abide by the regulations surrounding land use and construction. You'll need to pay Alaskan taxes. You'll need to give the state your address so you can get your cut of the oil windfall. Would do those things offend you?

...and it was then Gov. Pailin that got the people of Alaska that money.🙂

 

[wgerrard]

... Bill keeps bring up fundamentalist christians & in post 292 before he edited it out made the statement that the Republican party with the religious rights ideas are liken to a cult.

AM i not allowed to mention fundamentalists? They have provided the GOP's core support for decades. We can't address conservatism in America without talking about it.

I edit a lot of posts because I'm a sloppy typist. Sometimes I make editorial changes. I'm not trying to hide anything. Their my words and I can change them. I'll stand by my assertion that the right is cult-like.

the Republican Party is drifting away from it's identity from the religious right & becoming more moderate....

I don't think the evidence shows that. Just the opposite, in fact. Almost immediately after the election, conservatives began hewing to a rigid far right ideological stance. They talk of imposing "purity" tests on candidates (including here in NC). They focus out-of-state money and resources to defeat moderate Republicans. Conservatives assert on a regular basis that they way for them to win is to adhere strictly to their beliefs.

 

[wgerrard]

...and it was then Gov. Pailin that got the people of Alaska that money.🙂

Kinda hard to miss it. Not that everyone thought kicking back the oil proceeds to every Alaskan was unquestionably the best thing to do with the money. One might ask Palin what Alaska will do when the oil runs out.

 

[bmattock]

You're arguing about mandatory insurance, when I want the linkage between insurance and health care to vanish. I don't want the purchase of insurance, mandated or otherwise, to be a prerequisite for access to health care.

What you're arguing is not on the menu.

Arguing that the present legislation doesn't encompass that is beside the point.

Certainly it is the exact point. When offered 'chicken' or 'beef', there is no point arguing that was you really want is 'fish' and therefore you insist we choose 'chicken'. There is nothing like what you want on the menu.

It's a false comparison, and a typical sleight-of-hand trick. Hold up a hundred dollar bill and ask people if they'd rather have that or a kick in the nuts. Don't tell them that the choices are neither a hundred dollar bill nor a kick in the nuts, just pretend that's what the choices are.

States typically require that drivers have insurance or post bonds to assure financial responsibility. Has that been challenged in court? Life is full of things we are required to do. Few of them are mentioned in the Constitution.

As I have said - and repeatedly - that is a false comparison. No one is required to drive, as you well know. Millions in the USA do not own cars, nor do they drive, and they have no automobile insurance. There is no federal requirement that everyone have car insurance even if they do drive - that's a state law.

The federal government does not mandate automobile insurance of every citizen. If either of the two current bills most likely to succeed in the Senate pass, the federal government will, for the first time in history, require citizens to purchase a good or service. That is unprecedented. The CRS agrees.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health-care-overhaul-constitutional/

You can obfuscate all you like - I know as well as you do what the facts are. This requirement is unique, novel, never been done before in the USA.

CRS: Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the commerce clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.

 

[gb hill]

Sarah Palin has joined the Reds? I know she's an unprincipled opportunist, but I never saw that one coming.

Ok! my bad it's Rogue, but she probably does wear rouge lipstick.😀

 

[wgerrard]

Sorry, Bill. I didn't realize you print the menus.

I take your points. I don't agree.

I think asking if state auto insurance/financial responsibility laws have been challenged is relevant because they represent a government mandate. It isn't relevant that no one is forced to drive. if you do drive, you are forced to buy insurance or post a bond.

I think it is disingenuous to insist that the issue of single payer is a diversion. It isn't. A lot of people want single payer, but also want at least some reform if we can't, now, get single payer. People die because our health system is broken. A bill that patches it is better than nothing.

i understand you are angered about the prospect of mandated insurance. I'm not angered, no more than I am angered about mandated Social Security insurance payments.

 

[gb hill]

Kinda hard to miss it. Not that everyone thought kicking back the oil proceeds to every Alaskan was unquestionably the best thing to do with the money. One might ask Palin what Alaska will do when the oil runs out.

The oil will never run out! Thats just another global warming scare tactic the left uses. Glad to see the farce is finally coming to light. Limbaugh nailed this one. He's been saying it's a money sceme & a farce since the 90's. Here's the transcipt if you got guts to read the truth!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112509/content/01125109.guest.html

 

[bmattock]

Sorry, Bill. I didn't realize you print the menus.

The Congress prints the menus. You want to argue that we have to pick an item from column C when there is only column A and column B, so you conflate A with C in hopes we'll be confused. I'm not confused. I know what the current health care bills contain and what they do not. The left continues to argue for things that sound wonderful (to other liberals, I guess) but are not choices in the current legislation being proposed. It's trickery, fakery, and it's banal. Argue for or against what is an actual choice, not pie-in-the-sky that isn't on the menu.

 

[wgerrard]

The oil will never run out! ]

Uh-huh. Yeah.

 

[wgerrard]

The Congress prints the menus. You want to argue that we have to pick an item from column C when there is only column A and column B, so you conflate A with C in hopes we'll be confused. I'm not confused. I know what the current health care bills contain and what they do not. The left continues to argue for things that sound wonderful (to other liberals, I guess) but are not choices in the current legislation being proposed. It's trickery, fakery, and it's banal. Argue for or against what is an actual choice, not pie-in-the-sky that isn't on the menu.

I'm not conflating anything. I want single payer. I want to pay taxes instead of insurance premiums. I understand neither of those are envisioned in the current bill. I think everyone is clear on that, as well.

If there is a reason, then, that I should stop asserting my position on either single payer or the bill, let me know.

 

[emraphoto]

The oil will never run out! Thats just another global warming scare tactic the left uses. Glad to see the farce is finally coming to light. Limbaugh nailed this one. He's been saying it's a money sceme & a farce since the 90's. Here's the transcipt if you got guts to read the truth!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112509/content/01125109.guest.html

????? Limbaugh??? i think i will go with the geophysicists versions.

 

[bmattock]

I think asking if state auto insurance/financial responsibility laws have been challenged is relevant because they represent a government mandate. It isn't relevant that no one is forced to drive. if you do drive, you are forced to buy insurance or post a bond.

Then it is not a mandate. You do not have to drive. Period. There is no mandate.

I think it is disingenuous to insist that the issue of single payer is a diversion. It isn't. A lot of people want single payer, but also want at least some reform if we can't, now, get single payer. People die because our health system is broken. A bill that patches it is better than nothing.

[Emphasis mine above]

No, sir, it is not. The patches that are being proposed make a bad situation worse - especially for me. That's that typical argument that I hear so much of; "well, even if it is not perfect, we have to do something!" No, we do not have to 'do something' when 'something' is driving off a cliff. If we do not have a good answer to the problem, the best thing we can do is NOTHING.

Doing 'something' for the sake of 'doing something' is feel-good, populist, wrong-headed, and ultimately evil by neglect. Either do something real, something constructive, or leave things alone. If we lack the national will to tear down and completely revamp the current system, then stop breaking it more to fix nothing and take more money out of the paychecks of working Americans to do it. These bills are not just bad, they're the worst things ever. They cost nearly a trillion dollars and they trash the Constitution.

i understand you are angered about the prospect of mandated insurance. I'm not angered, no more than I am angered about mandated Social Security insurance payments.

Again, no one has to pay into social security if they earn no income. NOT A MANDATE.

You seem unclear on what a mandate actually is.

If these bills pass, we have to buy health insurance. Period. In practical terms, one may have to work, one may have to drive, but it still remains a choice. Buying or not buying health insurance will no longer be a choice. Stop pretending that it's no big deal, that it's done all the time. It is a very big deal, and no, it has never been done before in the USA. It's unconstitutional and wrong.

 

[Thardy]

I don't want "government-controlled health care insurers". I want single payer. I want to pay my taxes and go to the doctor who gets a piece of my taxes.

Thats fine, but having the so called single payer will not guarantee that every conceivable treatment will be given for every conceivable illness.

See, we have figured out how to do many great things in Medicine but at a great price, and people expect the best. In the US state of the art has now equaled standard of care. State of the art is very expensive. We can cut cost and care to the bone and make healthcare very much less expensive.

 

[gb hill]

Uh-huh. Yeah.

OK then by your shallow assumption! We need to drill here! They have proved we have vast reserves. Why then can't we drill it? because the liberals & shysters like Al Gore (who made millions off of that farce of a movie of his!) have banned us from doing so because it might harm the environment. Such nonsense! Oil companies have the technology to drill millions of bbl's of crude oil without harming the environment!

 

[splitimageview]

I'd prefer to negotiate my own insurance premiums and pay my own doctor directly.

If I spend $1 in taxes for health care, how much of that is going into the government sink-hole bureaucracy, and how much will actually go directly to health care? Have you taken the time to look at how many departments and bureaus are to be created under this program, none of which are needed now and require no money at all?

Another set of government program(s) that have been around 40+ years...the War on Poverty. How many billions have we spent on that? Do we still have poor people?

 

[climbing_vine]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about the bills currently before Congress.

It's hard to tell, because most of your argument is generalized. You seem to like to say this only when necessary to avoid a point you can't back up.

I don't support a mandate either. I'm addressing the general speciousness. A number of people in this argument, including yourself, like to accuse people of engaging in ad hominem attacks. The irony is that your entire stance is, at heart, a single ad hominem. There is no practical argument, no evidentiary argument, only a philosophy accepted on faith with no reason that translates directly into: "You're all socialist control-freaks." This is the fallback to answer every question.

That's fine, but then you better start living it and move out to that cabin. You want the benefits of a civil society to accrue to you while simultaneously opting out of it whenever you find it convenient. It's cowardly, philosophically empty, and morally disingenuous.

Second, everyone is currently free not to buy insurance. Under the proposals currently under consideration, everyone will be required by law to buy insurance. Never before in the history of the USA has the federal government required a citizen to purchase a good or service by virtue of simply being alive. Car insurance, as I've noted, is not a valid comparison because one does not have to drive, any more than one has to have health insurance currently. But under the current proposals, one will have to purchase health insurance or face fines and/or prison.

Also specious. While I don't support a mandate, the current alternative to buying insurance is crossing your fingers and hoping you don't bankrupt your family by getting hit by a car. That's not a "choice" in the sense you wish to paint it.

and no, I do not wish to control yours. If I were to be left the hell alone, I'd be thrilled. And I have zero desire to control your life at all.

I'm going to say it again. You're either not being honest with yourself, or you're lying. You want to force every American to operate at the whims of insurance oligopolies. If you want to make an argument that this is better than operating at the whims of a government bureaucracy, then start doing your research and make that argument. But this "control" thing is just a lie. We're controlled either way.

So tell me all about being dishonest, liar.

Done and done.