[News] Obama signs historic healthcare reform into law

[Doc Durian]

Don't resort to insults. That kind of thing might work to generate an emotional response with young guys like MVP, but not someone like me. I'm not insecure about my intellect or experience, I've been around the block more than most on these issues, you know (or at least suspect) this by now. If there is a communication problem, maybe you aren't being clear about your points?

Yes, yes, Indi... I know... you've been around the proverbial block, done a spot of everything, and your demands/wishes will be respected or else. It's not difficult to witness this... subtlety? nearly command pole position in so many of your remarks...though I will say this... I like how you've started out swinging and the desired impact of your angles.

I hope I'm sufficiently vague enough here for your benefit:

1. Reinforcing the "insult" angle from the start.
2. Drawing in MVP as an example while pitting yourself as the polar opposite.
3. A 3 pronged comment about insecurity possibly intended as only 2 but with room to move, if intentional.
4. Continued chest-beating with fishing expedition/flattery/backside covering aspects.
5. Deflection and set-up for the tried and true, "Maybe we're not getting one another" aka (Give me more to bury you with, angle)

I genuinely like it.. you're a smoothy! ...but it doesn't get your job done effectively because you've either ignored or forgotten the basic sticking points between us.

You feel that the end justifies the means, I don't.

You believe that the US is a Democracy, I know it was not designed nor initially run to be such and it remains a Constitutional Republic, albeit severely raped and pillaged.

You think it's perfectly acceptable to foist your vision of morality upon the minority in the form of legislated theft. I find that repulsive despite however pure your intentions may be.

I'm still waiting for your example of the improved system we should subscribe to.

That statement is inherently loaded and the subtext implies that you, as a proponent of a socialist policy (and therefore a proponent of a socialist/pure democracy/big government) demand appeasement within the confines of your belief system which is at direct odds with the concepts of the Constitutional Republic which Americans actually live in. I, as a faithful follower of said Constitutional Republic am under no obligation, and in fact, possess no right to make a proposition which deals with a personal responsibility matter such as healthcare or national insurance schemes run by the State.

So, you can wait till the cows come home.

You are posting examples of various things, possibly even connected (I give you benefit of the doubt) but what system do you propose that replaces the current evil one?

Correct if I'm wrong, but I don't recall ever saying that the current system is evil. Raped, pillaged, plundered, etc etc.... but not evil. Ultimately, the current system remains a constitutional republic under severe assault and distress by some constituents who have unreasonable expectations they're prepared to unethically enforce upon their neighbours.

What example can you give me of such a system that functions in any way other than imagination? Calling something 'crap' is of no value unless you have something to replace it with.

It's the 1-2-3 jig, Indi... nice

There is no legislation you can enact, no regulation you can push, no threats you can make. You do not have the right steal from your neighbour, force your beliefs on them, or violate their liberty no matter how good your intentions may be.

You do however retain the right to freely assemble where you please, give your money to whom you please while negotiating for the best deal for as many willing cohorts in the quest to acquire reasonably priced health care coverage. The Free Market has always provided when not bailed up by bureaucracy and medical care was not always a rort (a good portion of bureaucracy remains technically illegal in the US despite legal renderings to the contrary).


We'd probably get along quite well in person, Indi. I'm sure we share similar thoughts and feelings about doing the best we can for our neighbours. Although the discussions on what that could entail would surely be heated from time to time.

And you don't mind being called "toots" from time to time..

[Mish]

You do not have the right steal from your neighbour, force your beliefs on them, or violate their liberty no matter how good your intentions may be.

I assume you are talking about taxes here? (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Following that line of thinking does that mean that all forms of taxes are thievery and everyone has the right not to pay them?

[Doc Durian]

yes, in a nutshell.

(Here come the collectivist dogs of war. I can hear the woofs) lol

[Junket]

It'd be pretty cool if taxes were localized. I think that would make more sense, and it'd be more efficient.

[Doc Durian]

Even better if they were voluntary.... eh?

[Mish]

yes, in a nutshell.

(Here come the collectivist dogs of war. I can hear the woofs) lol

What about the roads, the hospitals, the schools, the fire department, plumbing infrastructure, public transport and countless other public infrastructure? If everyone has the right not to contribute to them, then who will pay for that?

[Junket]

Even better if they were voluntary.... eh?

Then nobody would bother.

Towns and cities would become privatized, and instead of "taxes", there would be "fees", or "dues".

The powerful will always find ways to take our money.

Unions will form to fight the corporations and they'll still require dues to operate.

It's fubar.

[Doc Durian]

What about the roads, the hospitals, the schools, the fire department, plumbing infrastructure, public transport and countless other public infrastructure? If everyone has the right not to contribute to them, then who will pay for that?

Look up American History pre-Income Taxes, Mish.

[Mish]

Look up American History pre-Income Taxes, Mish.

Okay, I looked it up. Income tax in US was introduced in 1861, before that the Government raised revenue via high tariffs. High tariffs in the 20th century market was proven as an inefficient way to raise revenue as highlighted by a case in 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which backfired and sent US imports and exports into a tailspin. If raising high tariffs is no longer applicable in the modern globalized economy, how will the revenue for public works be raised without income tax?

Also something else to consider, is the state of public infrastructure in US prior to 1861 compared to today. Would the state of US public infrastructure prior 1861 be efficient, applicable and acceptable today? Bearing in mind the huge increase in population, larger emphasis on roads (with the invention of cars), plumbing, grids (etc.) in comparison to 1861 and before.

[IndiReloaded]

That statement is inherently loaded and the subtext implies that you, as a proponent of a socialist policy (and therefore a proponent of a socialist/pure democracy/big government) demand appeasement within the confines of your belief system which is at direct odds with the concepts of the Constitutional Republic which Americans actually live in. I, as a faithful follower of said Constitutional Republic am under no obligation, and in fact, possess no right to make a proposition which deals with a personal responsibility matter such as healthcare or national insurance schemes run by the State.

So, you can wait till the cows come home.

Translation^: You can't provide me a real-world example. I already knew this, but now you've admitted you are speaking from the theoretical, one could actually have a discussion.

Correct if I'm wrong, but I don't recall ever saying that the current system is evil. Raped, pillaged, plundered, etc etc.... but not evil.

You didn't. I admit that was a deliberate ping for your position. So you aren't quite as much a zealot as I thought. Good.

It's the 1-2-3 jig, Indi... nice

You haven't been reading my other posts^?

You do not have the right steal from your neighbour, force your beliefs on them, or violate their liberty no matter how good your intentions may be.

You are calling something theft that I simply don't agree with.

If someone decides that they don't want chlorinated/fluoridated water, but they choose to live in an urban community, is their 'pure' water being 'stolen' from them? Or are they just being contrary and have to accept that the majority made a decision they can either 1. Live with, 2. Convince the majority is wrong, so the laws change, or 3. Move.

Personally, my belief system says the latter. Can't budge me from this until you can show me the better alternative, one where ppl don't die from dysentery.

You do however retain the right to freely assemble where you please, give your money to whom you please while negotiating for the best deal for as many willing cohorts in the quest to acquire reasonably priced health care coverage. The Free Market has always provided when not bailed up by bureaucracy and medical care was not always a rort (a good portion of bureaucracy remains technically illegal in the US despite legal renderings to the contrary).

This ^ gibberish, Doc. How does this^ system actually WORK?

[Doc Durian]

Okay, I looked it up. Income tax in US was introduced in 1861, before that the Government raised revenue via high tariffs. High tariffs in the 20th century market was proven as an inefficient way to raise revenue as highlighted by a case in 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which backfired and sent US imports and exports into a tailspin. If raising high tariffs is no longer applicable in the modern globalized economy, how will the revenue for public works be raised without income tax?

Notice any correlation between tax rate spikes and wars/economic doldrums or any possible accompanying proximity to fiat vs. precious metal battles?

That's just a question and I didn't use words such as "inefficient", "backfired", "tailspin" or phrases like, "no longer applicable in the modern globalized economy"

Also something else to consider, is the state of public infrastructure in US prior to 1861 compared to today. Would the state of US public infrastructure prior 1861 be efficient, applicable and acceptable today? Bearing in mind the huge increase in population, larger emphasis on roads (with the invention of cars), plumbing, grids (etc.) in comparison to 1861 and before.

Prior to repeated costly military engagements domestic and later abroad alongside increased government meddling in economic affairs and increased Bureaucracy?

Public infrastructure needed in a free market, in a manner of speaking, provides for itself and far better than in a centrally government administered scheme.

The levels of population and technological sophistication of 1810 US were no more or less inferior to that which we currently have (2010) relatively speaking. There will always be a bigger generation, larger cannon, mode of transport, or waterwheel ready to pick up where the last one left off.

Apples and oranges, really...

Unless there are ambitions which lack a conscience and the room to sustain this growth, exponentially.

(There weren't always 50 States... but there was plenty of territory for the taking)

Translation^: You can't provide me a real-world example. I already knew this, but now you've admitted you are speaking from the theoretical, one could actually have a discussion.

That's your assertion, not mine.

You are calling something theft that I simply don't agree with.

I'm not surprised. Just how many thefts in progress each day are thwarted by reasoning with the thief?

If someone decides that they don't want chlorinated/fluoridated water, but they choose to live in an urban community, is their 'pure' water being 'stolen' from them? Or are they just being contrary and have to accept that the majority made a decision they can either 1. Live with, 2. Convince the majority is wrong, so the laws change, or 3. Move.

Does water come pre-chlorinated and pre-fluoridated to a standardized level by nature? If it doesn't, those who would like to drink that human concoction are more than welcome to add it to their own water bottles and stop deciding what is right or wrong for their neighbours health.

Personally, my belief system says the latter. Can't budge me from this until you can show me the better alternative, one where ppl don't die from dysentery.

Then, personally drink it and be happy. I'm not stopping you from doing what you believe to be correct and righteous for yourself.

Invent effervescent chlorine/fluoride tablets in tropical/berry/and orange flavours... and call it, "Carcinogen-Aid". You'll make a fortune with your Majority and leave us poor unhealthy Minorities to setting up a sun powered roof line water circulators/sterilizers out of discarded non-Carcinogen-Aid bottles.

I am a member of a Constitutional Republic. If you don't like it. You can either 1. Live with it. 2. Convince the overwhelming majority that it's wrong and have the nation legally disbanded and commenced as a new nation, under pure Democracy. or 3. Take your public carcinogen campaign/assault and move to one of the more dodgier nation states where they have nationalized healthcare and every pint of transfused blood comes with bonus mandatory chlorine/fluoride at levels you've never been more happier to see increased.

How does this^ system actually WORK?

see above.

Dance with me, darling. I'll lead.

[Mish]

Notice any correlation between tax rate spikes and wars/economic doldrums or any possible accompanying proximity to fiat vs. precious metal battles?

That's just a question and I didn't use words such as "inefficient", "backfired", "tailspin" or phrases like, "no longer applicable in the modern globalized economy"

And what are you saying by this? Are you saying that abandoning income tax and reinstating high tarrifs (as in prior to 1861) is still a viable way to raise revenue to support all modern public infrastructure?

Prior to repeated costly military engagements domestic and later abroad alongside increased government meddling in economic affairs and increased Bureaucracy?

Public infrastructure needed in a free market, in a manner of speaking, provides for itself and far better than in a centrally government administered scheme.

Provides for itself!

I see

Well Doc, that certainly explains everything for me


Perhaps roads, schools and hospitals grow on trees and it's just a matter of plucking them

[Doc Durian]

"modern public infrastructure" lol

How's the umpteenth Australian universal healthcare "Reform" going these days, Mish?

Where will they be sending the really sick ones to (with private fundraising drives) when the US doesn't have an advanced clinic worth visiting anymore?

[Mish]

Evading the questions again? Doesn't matter. I think you've made your position quite clear. Underneath all the resistance you don't have a solution. What this means in reality is you don't really have a voice. Complain all you want without a viable alternative no changes will happen and you'll be going with the flow like the same "sheep" you lash out against.

"modern public infrastructure" lol

How's the umpteenth Australian universal healthcare "Reform" going these days, Mish?

It's going. Perhaps it would've gone smoother with a flick of a magic wand in the land of fairies, goblins and magic roads where you live.

[Doc Durian]

Evading the questions again?

I get it now! Indi and your Socialism spruiking self against my sole voice of personal autonomy in debate equals a 2-1 "Majority" and therefore you both believe I owe you a sociological solution to the very kind of problem your belief system has spawned and perpetuated or I'll be overridden regardless, as the Minority who refutes your legal and philosophical basis for even proposing something socialist and bureaucratic to begin with...

News flash.. I don't owe you anything. Your socialism is your curse, not mine.

Doesn't matter. I think you've made your position quite clear. Underneath all the resistance you don't have a solution. What this means in reality is you don't really have a voice. Complain all you want without a viable alternative no changes will happen and you'll be going with the flow like the same "sheep" you lash out against.

If it is your belief that I don't have a voice in my matters of personal liberty, then you won't be offended if I tell you to stuff your misguided and potentially tyrannical socialist bullshit right back up your arse because I won't be complying with an immoral directive despite how you do or don't voice your vote (aka: intent to commit theft).

In this scenario, you're the one who actually has no voice. (unless of course you amend your entire universal healthcare spiel so that those who choose to join, can and will be required to donate... and those, like myself... who choose not to join, won't be stolen from. In that case...good luck.

It's going. Perhaps it would've gone smoother with a flick of a magic wand in the land of fairies, goblins and magic roads where you live.

It's bloated, on life support, and continually used as a warm up football during elections. A good indication for Americans should they like a crystal ball for the future. lol