Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing

wgerrard said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are now. I try not to let such things pass unchallenged. Thank goodness for me.

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

Let me know when your position is something that might actually become a law and I'll let you know if I'll consider voting for it. In the meantime, when I debate the current bills before Congress, I debate those bills and don't throw up chaff with the hopes others will be deflected from the actual issues.
 
It's true, we will never run out of oil.

Just like any resource, the scarcer it gets, the more expensive it gets. The more expensive it gets, the more viable other methods are of extracting it. Or, the more viably economic alternative forms will become.

It's not like we'll get to the point where there is only one barrel left, and it will sell for $75. 🙂
 
"Oil companies have the technology to drill millions of bbl's of crude oil without harming the environment!"

i don't know whether to laugh or cry. OF COURSE the oil companies are going to proclaim they can do so?!?! HOWEVER they seem to failing to actually do it all over the world.
 
wgerrard said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not going to suggest anything, I know where that leads, but just an observation on what has been said by Americans on this thread from a disinterested outside party. If what you just said is common WRT health care costs than I think you guys are getting royally screwed and as to anyone calling the system you have the most efficient and cost effective in the world I would have to wonder. Like I said it is none of my business what goes on internally south of the border but it sure is creating a lot of derision outside of it. I hope you guys get it sorted as entertaining as this has been to observe from the outside.

Bob
 
climbing_vine said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, I do not think I've used the word 'socialist' in this thread. But I have used terms meaning 'control freaks' and man is it ever the truth.

And whether you are 'for' the mandated insurance or not, that's what's in the bills being proposed now. If you're for those bills, then you're for mandated insurance. I'm not, which is why I'm against the bills.

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.
Click to expand...

There is no universal health care provision in the US Constitution. It is neither a government mandate nor a legal position for the federal government to take. Insisting that universal health care is a right when it is not is what is wrong.

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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a choice. I've gone without health insurance at many points in my life. Wasn't happy about it, but it was what my finances required. Now, it will no longer be a choice. Refuse to purchase it, and pay a fine. Refuse to pay the fine, go to prison. That's not control? And how was I 'controlled' when I did not purchase health insurance because I could not afford it? Oh right, I wasn't. No one made me buy it, no one threatened me with fines or prison, no government interfered and force me to buy it. Somehow, this control you insist is there, well, it just wasn't.

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.
Click to expand...

NOBODY IN THE USA CURRENTLY HAS TO BUY INSURANCE. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. I cannot make it any clearer than that.
 
wgerrard said:
I'd like those arguing from the right to explain how a for-profit system can provide care for all. I'd like to see examples of societies that actually did that.
Click to expand...

The only way for care to be provided for all, is for everyone to provide for their own care.

Some choose not to. They'd rather buy an iPhone or an LCD TV or a Nissan 300Z. Is that smart? The answer is, it depends...

People should have their own individual drive and motivation to provide for themselves. Those that don't have such motivation, well, they don't. No amount of government assistance is going to change that.

Just imagine the precedent being set of the government forcing its citizens to buy something. What are they going to force us to buy next?
 
GB Hill is right. You can't argue with Rush Limbaugh. The portly chickenhawk doesn't accept that anyone who is one iota to the left of him can have the faintest idea of what they are talking about. Nor can his ditto-heads (is that term still current?)

When we first heard Lardball, my wife and I thought he was a brilliant stand-up comedian, parodying the loony right.

Then we realized he thought he was serious, and suddenly, he wasn't funny any more.

Cheers,

R.
 
bmattock said:
And whether you are 'for' the mandated insurance or not, that's what's in the bills being proposed now. If you're for those bills, then you're for mandated insurance. I'm not, which is why I'm against the bills.
Click to expand...

Again, Bill, this is intellectually incoherent. If being for the current bill means being for every provision of it, then *precisely the same logic* dictates that if you are against the current bill, you are for the current system. Because if the bill is defeated, the current system is what we have. But you don't like that side of the coin because you know it's currently broken. Man up and start being consistent.

There is no universal health care provision in the US Constitution. It is neither a government mandate nor a legal position for the federal government to take. Insisting that universal health care is a right when it is not is what is wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you keep saying this. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows the government to force me to pay for dropping bombs in innocent civilians in places on the other side of the world. That's not how the Constitution works, as wgerrard explained at length. You are confused.


Yes, it is a choice. I've gone without health insurance at many points in my life. Wasn't happy about it, but it was what my finances required. Now, it will no longer be a choice. Refuse to purchase it, and pay a fine. Refuse to pay the fine, go to prison. That's not control? And how was I 'controlled' when I did not purchase health insurance because I could not afford it? Oh right, I wasn't. No one made me buy it, no one threatened me with fines or prison, no government interfered and force me to buy it. Somehow, this control you insist is there, well, it just wasn't.
Click to expand...

So, to be clear: because your roll of the dice worked out, that implies that people for whom it doesn't work out don't exist. Or don't matter. Or something. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

NOBODY IN THE USA CURRENTLY HAS TO BUY INSURANCE. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. I cannot make it any clearer than that.
Click to expand...

They do if they don't want to risk bankrupting their entire family for something outside of their control (like being hit by a car or being beaten by a mugger). Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. I cannot make it any clearer than that.
 
Last I heard, oil was a naturally produced resource. It's part of the environment, as such.

I sure would like the US to start using all the resources we have, instead of letting it sit in the ground. But that makes too much sense, so it won't happen.

emraphoto said:
"Oil companies have the technology to drill millions of bbl's of crude oil without harming the environment!"

i don't know whether to laugh or cry. OF COURSE the oil companies are going to proclaim they can do so?!?! HOWEVER they seem to failing to actually do it all over the world.
Click to expand...
 
the by products of production most certainly aren't benign (which is what i presume you are eluding to).

burn off for one. a very nasty element of oil drilling/acquisition that most certainly has no place in the environment.
 
Considering virtually everything that has a part of our modern lives is related to oil in one way or another, I'm amazed how many people would prefer to go back in time to B.O. --- before oil. 🙂
 
you're putting word in my mouth. i never said that. what i do say is that we need to be a LOT more aware of the actual costs of our lifestyles than we currently are.
 
digitalintrigue said:
The only way for care to be provided for all, is for everyone to provide for their own care.

Some choose not to. They'd rather buy an iPhone or an LCD TV or a Nissan 300Z. Is that smart? The answer is, it depends...

People should have their own individual drive and motivation to provide for themselves. Those that don't have such motivation, well, they don't. No amount of government assistance is going to change that.

Just imagine the precedent being set of the government forcing its citizens to buy something. What are they going to force us to buy next?
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. There are so many people who can afford to buy limitless new iPhones, LCD TVs and motor-cars, but not health insurance. And so few who are so poor that they can't even afford a 5th-hand clunker, a pay-as-you go mobile phone (used sparingly, if they can afford it at all) and a TV from the Goodwill.

This is getting really silly. I sometimes wish I were Marxist enough to encourage this sort of Limbaugh-style unexamined populist garbage, and let it blow up in the faces of the people who swallow it. But there are an awful lot of poor, decent, hard-working people who can't get insurance at any sane price. Cancer in 2000? Pre-existing condition. Follow-up treatment? F*** off and die!

Someone said earlier that this is like arguing with John Birchers or Young Pioneers. This is flattery. It's like arguing with Limbaugh himself, viz., not worth the effort.

And if you really think you're insured for everything; well, as Frances said, "I hope you never get cancer. Or a heart attack." (She's had cancer and her brother had a heart attack.) Of course we hope you don't get cancer or have a hart attack anyway, but if such a misfortune were to befall anyone we know, we would be doubly agonized for them if they were in the United States. Again from Frances: "I have worked in both accountng and personnel, and I have seen people who thought they were insured."

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
"I have worked in both accountng and personnel, and I have seen people who thought they were insured."
Click to expand...

Precisely. My mother thought she was insured. Now she's entering year two of slowly and painfully dying from a reversible condition.

People who think they currently have "choices" have the mentality of compulsive gamblers. "As long as I win this time, everything is great!"
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yeah, right. There are so many people who can afford to buy limitless new iPhones, LCD TVs and motor-cars, but not health insurance.
Click to expand...

The point is not how many people who can, it's that PEOPLE CAN, and DO. 🙂

A large percentage of the population in the US chooses NOT to buy health insurance. That is a fact, it's not populism.

"I have worked in both accountng and personnel, and I have seen people who thought they were insured."
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen people who thought they were insured as well, right after they drove directly into my car. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
 
digitalintrigue said:
The point is not how many people who can, it's that PEOPLE CAN, and DO. 🙂

A large percentage of the population in the US chooses NOT to buy health insurance. That is a fact, it's not populism.
Okay, prove your "fact". Here's my anecdote: in my years on this earth, I have never encountered a single American who "chose" not to buy insurance, unless the "choice" was between insurance and rent or food.

Yes, I've seen people who thought they were insured as well, right after they drove directly into my car. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Click to expand...

Medical care is too expensive to take "personal responsibility" for, thanks to the distorting power of large non-competitive oligopolies. More empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
digitalintrigue said:
The point is not how many people who can, it's that PEOPLE CAN, and DO. 🙂

A large percentage of the population in the US chooses NOT to buy health insurance. That is a fact, it's not populism.



Yes, I've seen people who thought they were insured as well, right after they drove directly into my car. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Click to expand...

No, that IS actually the point, but if you're determined to miss it, well, you're determined to miss it.

Cheers,

R.
 
digitalintrigue said:
The only way for care to be provided for all, is for everyone to provide for their own care.
Click to expand...

Actually, the only way for care to be provided for all is for care to be provided for all. This is what actually occurs in every developed nation in the West and plenty of others. Moreover, health care is a human right and it's the responsibility of governments to ensure that right is protected. The failure of the U.S. to provide health care for its citizens is all the more monumental given that it's the best positioned of any government to provide it.

The rest of the world just scratches their heads when they hear the kind of discourse surrounding the health care debate in the U.S. The ideological cult of individual choice serves the interests of industry quite well, but it really just screws the average citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom