blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Congress has been granted the power flat out in the original Constitution to tax people however they wish, with one addition: apportionment.

All the 16th amendment did was remove the apportionment clause in the constitution's authority to tax.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg.../IncomeTax.htm is an excellent article for further detail on your questions of it being voluntary. Income Tax is a well-settled legal matter, and although I strongly feel there are better ways for the government to generate tax revenue, I doubt we will be able to enact significant change to the income tax as it is now.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, good Wikipedia article on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act

It's a really bad law imo, but not for the reasons the media says. (Actually, some of what the media says are the worst parts of the act are some of the most beneficial to normal citizens....It's retarded.)

(Edit) Ninja edits inc since you posted back-to-back Jared.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

sweet thanks for the link
i had found this one earlier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afforda...or_America_Act
but i could not confirm that it was the one that obama actually signed

now i just need to find the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
on a government website to confirm that it is the one that is law and i need to download it


oops

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...dable_Care_Act

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

I know how to protect patients and make care affordable:

Let people die.

If a man is responsible for his own health, he'll take better care of himself. If an insurance company is allowed to drop an unprofitable client, the man who is taking care of himself will have extraordinarily affordable health care.

If I have to pay for old, fat people who have lived their entire lives making unhealthy decisions, then my health insurance become extraordinarily unaffordable.

But I suppose this is a repost too.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

the problem is people think that a service by man is a right.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Where did you pick this up from, Brainy? Specifically, please. Not a limp-wristed response of "But that's what what WELFARE AMERICAH THINKS!" Well, unless you are claiming that you think that service by man is a right, then I'll happily debate that with you.

And where did you pick this interpretation of the PPACA from?

Yea, the PPACA is deeply flawed - but I fail to see how any possible interpretation of the PPACA could lead to what you are claiming. The closest I can come to what you claim is that an insurance company can no longer pre-approve a procedure, then later decline to pay for it. This interpretation baffles me.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

A lot of people think that, those making laws do too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-be..._b_212770.html

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Okay. You are distorting what is being said in that article, but I'll roll with it.. After reading that lolHoffpolol article, I am surprised that you have such a vehement reaction to some parts of it. It's not primarily an article about people having a right to another person's work - but rather, about the economics behind it. It's an argument about having the right to affordable health care - this is markedly different.

The US pays the most of any country in the world (First, oh yes! USA! USA! USA!), and we are in the 30s or 40s for expected life span, quality of health care, and more.

1% of the people in our medical system are about 23% of our costs. 5% of the people are half or more of the costs. Insurance Companies cost us an additional ~50% or more on top of that. And then there is this ridiculous system where doctors aren't paid a salary, but are paid based on the tests they order/etc.. On top of this, 62% of all bankruptcies were caused all or in part due to medical bills. Interestingly, you'll note Malpractice isn't even on my list of contributing factors - it's not one. There's a red herring about malpractice, and I'll happily argue it if you want to go there. There's also a huge red herring about "omgwtflolillegals", and we can argue that if you want as well.

There's two questions you need to answer, Brainy. Ones that have nothing to do with what you are talking about.

First off, do you believe that health care should be affordable? This is what the argument boils down to. It's not that it's a right *per say*, but that if you get sick, you shouldn't be bankrupted. A choice between living or going bankrupt isn't one that people should have to face - and consider we're the only first world country that gives our citizens this choice.

Secondly, how do you propose to give medical coverage to that 5%? Or do you propose to let a 20th of the country just die? Perhaps a 10th? Even as much as a fifth of the country perhaps? Are you seriously proposing to let a large chunk of our population die simply because they do not have the money for our extremely high medical costs but have extremely easy to treat ailments even though it isn't a "right"?

I strongly support a public health system - not because of the whole "I AM ENTITLEDWARRGLHSADFLKABLE" idiocy, but simply because other nations with public health systems have a much saner, much more affordable system. I cannot speak for many, but what I have seen from the Netherlands system has impressed the hell out of me compared to dealing with the stupidity in our medical system.

Sources: Brainy's article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-be..._b_212770.html
Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I didn't even read the article, i googled "healthcare is a right" and found a good titile by Ben. Sandders.

When you factor in the difference that we pay in overall taxes, we pay exactly the same as Canadians for health coverage.


Of course it should. But it should work itself out, the more regulations we [the gov't] keep putting on the industry, the most the costs rises. Example: Extending 26 year olds to our parents insurance (the first part of obamacare) has already cause prices to skyrocket.

Yeah, so you believe it's a right?

You believe the government should provide all our citizens affordable care?

You don't care that all the welfare nations that do this are in worse economic troubles than us and are rationing care? (do I need to provide sources?)


strawman.

Do you not think the rationing will not do the same?


And I strongly want a complete private health insurance where I get the coverage I pay for, without gov't intervention in the system. I strongly believe that I would get the best deal this way.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

If we let all the people with lifelong chronic genetic diseases die, as nature intended, they would not reproduce, and therefore, we would have far fewer people with lifelong chronic genetic diseases...

I don't believe that we should "just let people die", but I believe more strongly that our nation shouldn't sell its soul to save them. What it comes down to is this: let every man be responsible for his own health.

If you know that you could be personally bankrupted by a medical requirement, then you're much more likely to become permanently interested in your own well being. Go ahead and enact such a thing, and you'll quickly see the smokers stop smoking and the fatties will start to slim down - those that dont will soon find that they don't have the money for food or cigarettes anyways.

Medical research, which is highly demand based, will gradually shift focus to prevention instead of correction.

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

Let the guy who can afford to keep his lifeling chronic genetic disease in check pay for it. Don't make me pay additional fees to keep everyone with that lifelong chronic genetic disease unnaturally immortal.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

I think we have effectively reversed natural selection. Sure the major diseases and things still take people out. But think off all the retarded people who, thanks to medical science, are living a really long time.

TrickerZ

iTrader: (6)

I've talked with several people from different countries about their healthcare and they find it nice for basic things and prescriptions are much easier and cheaper to deal with, but they say they have to go to other places like the US or India to get major operations or specialist things done.

It's really hard to draw lines because there are always exceptions. The problem is when we make an exception, that gets used to make more exceptions which are similar, but not quite right. It doesn't matter what you do, human nature will eventually it up. The best thing to do is localize as much as possible so when it blows up, the impact is minimal. People are also closer to getting what they pay for that way and complain to local government instead of national when they're angry.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Brainy, great post. I'm going to get to it ASAP, but it's new years, so it'll take me a bit to give that the response it deserves.

How about people with cheaply, easily treated diseases? How about cheap vaccinations? At what point do you draw the line for "Okay, this is too much!", or "Okay, this is too little!"

Do you propose letting an estimated ~150k children a year die due to being unable to procure the most simple and basic medical care? (Read: Extremely cheap, some procedures costing as little as $10)

What countries? I would understand if it was Canada, but Canada has a unique problem of all first world countries: We steal their doctors. Hell, we steal doctors from other countries all the time too, but Canada has it uniquely hard hit (This actually gives rise to another reason for our ever-increasing medical costs, but it will be covered in my response to Brainy's post later).

As an example to why I say this, I had surgery and it took about 3 weeks to get it all set up. In the UK, it took a friend about 6 months earlier ~4 weeks to get in for the same surgery.

However, in the UK? One news article that got blasted all around here in the US was "OMG! THE UK DENIED NEEDED HIP SURGERIES BECAUSE BAD MEDICAL SYSTEM!!!!!!oneoneoneoneretarded1" This was untrue, and in my eyes a flat out propaganda-based lie. What happened is the UK public health care system (NO, BAAAHDD) did an analysis on people who got hip replacements. They realized that giving hip replacements to fatties was a waste of funds (The severely obese were back in needing a new hip in both a very short time and at a surprisingly high percentage - high double digits IIRC. Basically, a total waste of time and money on everyone's part.). They then told the fatties "Lose weight, or don't get a hip replacement".

I don't see that happening here in the US, and yet it is exactly the thing I see all 3 of the posters I responded to supporting.

There was a time when this was true, but in medicine in the US, this is no longer the case.

A major contributor that I ignored in my previous post with healthcare is right around the 70s and 80s, people began corporatizing hospitals. Currently, we have numerous corporations comprised of dozens or even hundreds of hospitals that operate on a for-profit basis.

In order to "localize" this, how do you propose decoupling for-profit hospital corporations that span the US from hospitals?

This is just one example, and the easiest of them btw in medicine.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

you have totally 100% avoided answering the actual question that i proposed to you. you would make a great politician

which was
lets assume that this tax is constitutional
how do YOU feel about the MAJOR definition differences in reference to "voluntary tax" of the author of the tax code as compared to how irs.gov explains it

see post 706 page 36 for these definition differences

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

its not my responsibility to pay for the consequences for the ignorance of others

Simply put most people dont know how to eat right. They don't teach you how to eat right in public schools therefore it is not public knowledge. Don't get me wrong they do teach the pyramid and what not and it is important to have a balanced diet. But what really causes diseases is all the fake artificial crap that they put in our food.

And honestly most people dont even care to learn. My dad and stepmom both have very serious health problems. They are both severely overweight and one has cancer and the other has a severe irregular heart beat. I have researched both alot and tried to help them out. I have tried to loan books of mine to them. I have even just told them about one VERY common ingredient (MSG) that is in probably the daily diet of every american who does not watch out for it. It is known to be a fertilizer for cancer and to mess with heart beats. They have made no attempt to even cut back on that. I now feel less sorry for them than I once did.

It is NOT up to me to pay the rest of the nation to behave in the same manor.

If you want cheap food. You will get sick. It really is that simple.
Pay the farmer now or pay the doctor later.
I will pay the farmer now since the doctor cant cure alot of crap.

maybe we should have a socialized mechanics system so that i can pay for someones engine rebuilds since they refuse to educate themselves on how to properly maintain their cars.

all this bs aside that is not why i was looking up the obama care bill
i have heard a rumor and am trying to see if it is for real or not

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

hey gearhead i know you posted about mountain top removal on this thread before
i just watched a documentary about it on netflix called The Last Mountain
http://thelastmountainmovie.com/video/
it is really good and discusses the politics behind it
how it wasn't even legal until W. Bush came along
it discusses how it destroys the land

and the health effects
there was this one park where six neighbors living next to eachother all got brain tumors

if you dont have netflix im sure you can buy it
and probably find it on a torrent

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

My link explained in great detail about the "voluntary" myth of the tax code.

I've re-read 706 twice now, and in my response, I fail to see how anything was not covered.

It's also not my responsibility to pay for roads I don't use, emergency services that I've never used, schools that my nonexistant children will never use, fire protection I've never had to take advantage of, or courts that I've never been involved in.

What's your point?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

All right Brainy, I've looked and looked and looked during my free time over the past few days.

I cannot find this except for extreme right sources that try to claim the left is saying healthcare is a Right. As far as I can tell, the argument that affordable healthcare is a right (Note the lower case r, not the upper case Bill of Rights Right) is all that is coming from anyone, and you have people trying to put words in their mouth claiming something else.

BS. Source?

This is the simplest and most readable source on the matter I can find. If you don't believe it, I can provide sources that are much less readable but a great deal more trustworthy. I would highly recommend reading my linked source for other myths about the system that are relevant to this argument. INCLUDING the waiting myth that someone trotted out in this very thread AND the myth that Canadians come to the US similarly.

Insurance prices skyrocketed prior to any part of Obamacare being implemented, with the insurance companies crying wolf about Obamacare's costs and using it as a reason to raise rates.

Let's assume for a second Obamacare was completely repealed today. Sounds good, right?

About 4% of the population would see any change in premiums. That's it. Only the people under an individual insurance plan that meets certain specific criteria would be affected.

Lower case r, not capital-bill-of-rights-R. To be specific, I feel I have a non-bill-of-rights right to be able to get sick - and not die.

In the 50s, and even in the 60s this wasn't an issue. But right around when hospital corporations started really kicking it into high-gear and turning hospitals into for-profit businesses (Not to mention the associated move away from non-profit to for-profit of the entire medical industry), this went down the tubes.

Yes and no. To be more specific, I think the solution would be similar to the medical system we had in the '50s or '60s. This emphasizes personal responsibility, and a great deal more.

But wait. We can't go back to that now. You have to understand, I agree in principle with what you, or Fooger, or a lot of the other guys here say. But I also understand we can't go back to that time.

In order to do that, we would have to take over all for-profit corporatized hospitals and return them to the non-profits like they used to be, we'd have to rape the Brainy out of the insurance companies, we'd have to immediately place massive regulations over the AMA, we'd have to tear apart our entire IP system...The list goes on and on.

A public health option is the cheapest and easiest solution to our current system. It's not the best, I'll grant you that, but it's the only solution that has a chance of working.

Thanks for bringing up something I've been wanting to.

There are many ways to ration care. One of them is to raise prices. Guess what?

Medicine and doctors are finite. As it is, we see about 30% minimum overtreatment of all people (Source linked in a previous post, Wikipedia article) in the US. Read: 30% of all medical treatments have no purpose. Let's assume a miracle happened, and it was all cut out overnight....we would see a LOT greater than a 30% reduction in cost of medical services.

But because there is such a high demand, and no rationing other than in cost, cost continues to go up. Rationing isn't the bad thing that it is painted - I gave an example of rationing in a previous post. Specifically, my example of telling fatties to get not-fat to get a hip treatment. That's a form of rationing. Do you have a problem with telling fatties they can't get useless surgery unless they lose weight?

What do you propose to do about the 1% that takes up 23% of our medical resources? The 5% that takes up over half?

There's no strawman about it. This 1%, this 5% is almost entirely composed of your grandparents, my grandparents, everyone on this boards great grandparents or grandparents. The elderly are expensive as Brainy to insure from a private company. What is your proposal on how to deal with them other than letting them die?

We already ration via cost, as explained earlier. This is a bad form of rationing for everyone but for-profit medical companies.

I agree on principle with you, but I also have to acknowledge it's not possible.

Sources: http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427