What a travisty [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

LegioX

2012-06-28, 11:18 AM

It is a Pyrrhic victory for Obama. He gets to save face, but the ruling is bad for Obama's reelection chances. Law remains unpopular and it is the reason they lost the 2010 midterms bigtime. Had it been struck down those voters would be somewhat pacified and content. Now they will be angry. I predict a very good fundraising month for Romney. With a big unpopular law there is no winning by keeping it. It, plus the economy are going to overshadow the election so his efforfs to focus on less important issues like immigration are not going to work.

Im completely baffled how they construe it as a "tax" when the lawmakers and Obama went through great lengths to say it wasnt. That too is bad for Obama because now they can pin a Tax hike on him. And what a horrible precedent this sets. The govenrment can now use this to justify us purchasing any good or service since it is a "tax increase to those who choose not to buy it". Supreme court epic fail.

Yep i can see it now. Obama gov't issues an executive order stating we must eat fruits and vegetables before our main meal at any restaurant. Federal Employees will monitor all food being sold at all restaurants and if the rule is not obeyed a TAX will be imposed on either business or person. GOD HELP US.

On another note. It's going to be funny (not in a good way) when these so called Liberals will have either the mother or father placed on death panels b/c the gov't seems them unfit/or a burden to society b/c they are to old.

aceshigh

2012-06-28, 11:23 AM

I wish I could edit the thread title, my mispelling of travesty was also a travesty.

Malorn

2012-06-28, 11:32 AM

Meh.

Exmortius

2012-06-28, 11:51 AM

so did these guys actually read it or just come to a decision based on feelings? forcing a person to buy something is socialism pure and simple. you can't sugarcoat that or change it's meaning. it is what it is plain and simple. this will be what breaks the back of small business and the middle class if left unchecked. are there some good things in it yes. but the way this was done has just been wrong imo.

Saifoda

2012-06-28, 12:11 PM

The only case that really could have been properly made is that it would be unconstitutional viz a viz the 9th amendment. Honestly a good way to combat this will be at the state level -- state laws supersede (in theory) federal law within those states, in accordance with the 10th amendment. But, then again, what's the Constitution anyways :ban::ban::ban:

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-28, 12:12 PM

Maybe I'm growing old and cynical but anytime I see a claim that one piece of legislature will 'destroy america' I just roll my eyes. There was a lot of that during the Bush years from the left, and now we're getting a lot of it from the right, and frankly it never happens. Both sides just crying wolf.

Meanwhile, the super-rich completely fucked the planet by being greedy idiots. To my knowledge many of them are still there and still doing the same shit that fucked the planet the first time around, and those are the people funding our politicians' campaigns. While we plebs quibble over toothless legislation that won't change much of anything but will cost money doing it, just like every fucking law that gets passed in that broken-down wretched hive of scum and villainy we call congress.

I'm too young to feel old, but this political stuff is just... ugh. Are you guys really that pissed about a piece of totally toothless, utterly impotent half-laws like this health bill? The War on Terror alone costs in a year what ObamaCare will cost in a decade and that's using the (probably inflated) estimates from GOP sources. The War on Drugs has spent maybe an estimated $20 billion this year alone doing fuck all.

It's just... ugh. Really? England has free health care and they're not exactly dying in the streets, are they? Would it kill us to admit different countries might have the right idea? But no, we yank all the teeth and bones out of the health care bill and then sit around whining about it and throwing mud at each other. What an enviable society we are.

Malorn

2012-06-28, 12:17 PM

Meh.

Vash02

2012-06-28, 12:21 PM

When states force you to buy car insurance that's fine but when the government forces you to buy health insurance its the end of the nation?
States: "it's a practical law"
Federal government: "SOCIALISM!!!!!11!"

It's all about winning and losing in Washington now. It's not about the welfare of the people. Yes, now that everyone in the US will have comprehensive healthcare, the welfare of the people has plummeted :rolleyes:

Exmortius

2012-06-28, 12:23 PM

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-28, 12:29 PM

last i checked europe isn't doing all that well. your countries are bailing each other out atm. spain and greece are just the beginning. this was another attempt for them to turn the states into more of a clone of a slow failing europe. you may be sick of it but we're sick of our country being turned into something against our will. majority of americans do not want this, we know what will come with this decision. i'm in my 30s now and i'm definitely concerned at what is slowly going on with the states. you can either blow it off or be apathetic or speak up. most of us speak up and state our opinion or displeasure with what's going on. it might not be long before that is ruled illegal or a tax levied if this keeps up......sadly.

Are you talking to me? I was born, raised, and currently live in New Hampshire. I'm as American as mom and apple pie.

Though to be honest, I'm not all that patriotic. Hard to be after you realize we're all of us little more than clever apes all crowded together on a small blue rock hurtling through the bleak dark reaches of space. As if our stupid little teams matter worth a damn.

Warborn

2012-06-28, 12:31 PM

last i checked europe isn't doing all that well.

This has nothing to do with health care. Americans spend 2x as much on their health care for worse results. The issues Europe is having aren't because people having health care is expensive. If it were, the US would be a post-apocalyptic wasteland of roving gangs and violent anarchy by now.

LegioX

2012-06-28, 12:57 PM

When states force you to buy car insurance that's fine but when the government forces you to buy health insurance its the end of the nation?
States: "it's a practical law"
Federal government: "SOCIALISM!!!!!11!"

Yes, now that everyone in the US will have comprehensive healthcare, the welfare of the people has plummeted :rolleyes:

If i have to explain this one more time to you idiot liberals....

Car insurance is a not a right! It's a privilege. Does the gov't force you to buy a car? USE UR DAMN BRAIN.

aceshigh

2012-06-28, 12:58 PM

When states force you to buy car insurance that's fine but when the government forces you to buy health insurance its the end of the nation?
States: "it's a practical law"
Federal government: "SOCIALISM!!!!!11!"

Yes, now that everyone in the US will have comprehensive healthcare, the welfare of the people has plummeted :rolleyes:

What a ridiculous argument. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You don't have to carry auto insurance unless you are driving. Even then, you don't have to carry it for your own car, but to cover liabilities for others.

Saifoda

2012-06-28, 01:02 PM

this has nothing to do with health care. Americans spend 2x as much on their health care for worse results. The issues europe is having aren't because people having health care is expensive. If it were, the us would be a post-apocalyptic wasteland of roving gangs and violent anarchy by now.

yes bring the anarchy!!

edit: Also, yeah, the car insurance thing is an incredibly fallible argument. Did you know that you don't need a driver's license or to be of any age to drive a vehicle on your own property? Driver's licenses are needed because the government (really meaning the people) fund the roads -- they are state-owned (at various levels) property and such the state(s) can govern them as they so choose.

Zolan

2012-06-28, 01:16 PM

The SCOTUS made several distinctions.

1. The mandate was upheld only as a tax. (Congress' authority to tax)

2. The commerce clause does not allow congress to force you to buy something.

That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

- Justice Roberts

3. They also struck down the attempt to force the states to expand medicaid. Washington had told the states they would take away all medicaid funding if they didn't comply with the new program, which is not constitutional.

Hopefully this helps everyone understand. It's less a victory for democrats, and more like a Trojan horse.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-28, 01:39 PM

CutterJohn

2012-06-28, 01:46 PM

Funny how the downfall of America will be outlined in one word. "TAX"

So what does this mean? Gov't can do anything it pleases to the population as long as its a tax? FML

For the most part, yes. Congress has virtually unlimited powers for taxation. Had it been labeled the tax it obviously is from the start it would have never even reached SCOTUS. But it also wouldn't have passed, since the T word is verboten in todays politics. Dirty pool, but legit nonetheless.

They can tax whatever the hell they please, and not tax whatever the hell they please.

How could requiring someone to carry health insurance be considered constitutional? It blows my mind.

ETA: travesty too

You know what would blow your mind more? They could have outlawed the medical insurance industry and instituted state funded single payer UHC, and it would not have even reached SCOTUS. The constitution very explicitely gives congress the power to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare of the people.

This is how medicare operates, and is a settled argument. The more conservative compromise was the questionable one.

Zolan

2012-06-28, 01:49 PM

Right, it's important that we're keeping score properly, Zolan. We would have for the game to end only to find out that someone hadn't been keeping close attention to the tallies. There needs to be a clear winner.

It was just an observational statement regarding who will be more adversely affected by the ruling in the upcoming election.

Try not take it as anything more.

ziegler

2012-06-28, 01:55 PM

Im completely baffled how they construe it as a "tax" when the lawmakers and Obama went through great lengths to say it wasnt. That too is bad for Obama because now they can pin a Tax hike on him. And what a horrible precedent this sets. The govenrment can now use this to justify us purchasing any good or service since it is a "tax increase to those who choose not to buy it". Supreme court epic fail.

Go back and watch the SCOTUS hearings.

The Justices themselves had to correct the Lawyer arguing for the Law, as he kept calling it a penalty. The republicans called it a tax, and the democrats insisted it wasnt, go back and watch the Obama/Stephonolppu=oaiueoaiuweyropa;lyo985 interview. Obama practically chastises George for calling it a tax.
If it was a penalty, it would be unconstitutional.
But as a Tax...it's perfectly fine.

What the SCOTUS did today was tell the Congress is that you can impose anything on the people you want, so long as you call it a tax. They also enshrined the power to tax non-activity.
If you dont buy florida oranges, pay a tax, if you dont buy a Chevy Volt, pay a tax. If you dont have a M1 carbine and 100 rounds stored correctly on your premises....pay a tax......

The precedence set today is bad...very bad and we, The People, will end up being abused with it by both sides of the aisle.

Vash02

2012-06-28, 02:34 PM

If i have to explain this one more time to you idiot liberals....

Car insurance is a not a right! It's a privilege. Does the gov't force you to buy a car? USE UR DAMN BRAIN. lol, having a car is a privilege in America? Maybe if you live in a city, but hardly anywhere else.
So what do people do if the necessities of life are outside of reasonable walking distance? "Its your privilege to be able to go and get food for yourself and family. Therefore we shall force you to buy insurance on your only practicable means of transportation."

Maybe the Tea Party should hijack and cargo ship and toss off a few crates of drugs.

Neurotoxin

2012-06-28, 02:36 PM

Just looking for an excuse to fine and arrest people. It feeds the coffers, it feeds the jails (which happens when you don't pay that fine), and doesn't come at any penalty to the government or insurance companies. Incarceration and medical care are both for-profit systems, and this act of Capitalism further reinforces profits from these industries.

This is not Socialism, this is the opposite of it. Socialism would provide free medical care to everyone, rather than letting demanding that everyone pay into a for-profit industry. Let us be completely clear, this Capitalism exploiting the working class in every way possible, there is not an ounce of Socialism in demanding everyone pay for insurance.

People's right are under attack.
What to do? stand up, fight back!

forcing a person to buy something is capitalism pure and simple.
Fixed. Socialism doesn't charge for medical care, everyone has access, but the cost of medical care for all will be reflected in everyone's taxes. Socialism also doesn't require co-pay, deductibles, or any of that other bullshit.

Anyone who thinks Obama's health care policy is anything except Capitalism needs to seriously learn the difference between the two systems. Socialism doesn't seek to profit of it's citizens for basic necessities, while Capitalism does it for EVERYTHING: housing, food, education, medical care, basic transportation, etc.

Socialism is not State Capitalism, either. The point of making medical care a non-profit industry is that it takes out all the proprietary expenses. Every medicine, every tool, every research paper, costs so much money to access because all of the manufacturers are private companies seeking profit. Demanding that no profit may be made from things that are deemed to be basic necessities will help reduce costs significantly, and making medical research public and collaborative (rather than the private profit-seeking competition we see today) so that research is less expensive and more available, would make Socialized medicine in America work quite well.

So once again -

Socialism = Providing basic goods and services to all of it's people at no cost.

Capitalism = Profit off the working class by any means possible, even requiring everyone to pay for something if they can't afford it, even denying service or making services exorbitantly expensive to maintain profitability.

I know which one I prefer. Damn the money, as Muhammad Ali said.

Sirisian

2012-06-28, 04:16 PM

Kind of an odd stepping stone toward a single payer system. I've been reading about this for a while, and I don't think anyone on either side feels like this is the last stop for healthcare. We still have a long way to go.

Natir

2012-06-28, 06:39 PM

The opinion:
http://media.npr.org/documents/2012/june/scotus-health-care-062812.pdf

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.

The Affordable Care Act expands the scope of the Medicaid program andincreases the number of individuals the States must cover. For example, the Act requires state programs to provide Medicaid coverage by 2014 to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, whereas many States now cover adults with children onlyif their income is considerably lower, and do not cover childless adults at all. The Act increases federal funding to cover the States’ costs in expanding Medicaid coverage. But if a State does not comply with the Act’s new coverage requirements, it may lose not only the federal funding for those requirements, but all of its federal Medicaid funds.

Because THE CHIEF JUSTICE finds the withholding—not the granting—of federal funds incompatible with the Spending Clause, Congress’ extension of Medicaid remains available to any State that affirms its willingness to participate.

Malorn

2012-06-28, 07:23 PM

Meh.

Natir

2012-06-28, 07:46 PM

If the law was honestly revealed to the country as a tax at the time of its passing, it would have never been passed. The President is a fraud and a liar.

The president never said it was a tax, thats one of what the supreme court changed. I don't know why the Obama admin. just didn't make it a tax at the start... Republicans will have a good argument to stand on now, taxes. The medicaid part was nice, I think it was kind of dumb if states didn't want to participate they would get their funding cut...

Malorn

2012-06-28, 08:17 PM

Meh.

CutterJohn

2012-06-28, 09:00 PM

What the SCOTUS did today was tell the Congress is that you can impose anything on the people you want, so long as you call it a tax. They also enshrined the power to tax non-activity.
If you dont buy florida oranges, pay a tax, if you dont buy a Chevy Volt, pay a tax. If you dont have a M1 carbine and 100 rounds stored correctly on your premises....pay a tax......

The precedence set today is bad...very bad and we, The People, will end up being abused with it by both sides of the aisle.

This precedent was not set to today. They already tax non activity. What do you think all those credits, rebates, deductions, writeoffs, etc, are?

I do not have kids. The government taxes me more.

I do not own a house. The government taxes me more.

I am not in school. The government taxes me more.

etc, etc, etc

This is in no way a new power the congress has.

The court didn't change it to being a tax - that's what the attorney arguing it used as justification. They passed it saying it wasn't a tax increase, then turned around and argued to the court that it was.

The reason they didn't make it a tax from the start is that it would never have passed as a tax, and Obama had made many promises that he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class. But like most of the rest of what Obama says, it's just a bunch of bullshit. Can't wait to see the debates, wonder how many times Romney will use the words "fraud", "misled", "deceived" and "lied" when referring to Obama.

Sadly no one will use the word 'idiot' for people who didn't know exactly what he was doing the entire time. Its been 100% obvious that it functions exactly like a minor tax increase + new rebate from the beginning. :rolleyes:

I've made the argument here on this forum that this is the reason it would be held to be constitutional.

Welcome to politics. Everyone lies. Its exactly like the 'death panel' bullshit republicans spouted off to try to demonize health care reform.

Vecha

2012-06-28, 10:09 PM

I have mixed feelings on this subject(as I do on most subjects if you haven't noticed).

I hate the Rhetoric on both sides.

Dems saying Reps want everyone to die.

Reps saying Dems want the USA to turn into USSR Socialismpalooza.

I really, really like the pre-exisiting condition clause...(as it affects me. If I ever lose my health insurance I will be royally fucked without that clause.)

And I think everyone SHOULD get insurance...or, perhaps, maybe we should stop them from using the ER as their PC Doc?

While I can understand the viewpoint that the "car insurance" analogy doesn't quite work....people who require health care, and choose not to buy health insurance, are affecting us all in a negative way. Their irresponsibly is really fucking us up.

I also understand the issue of state rights.

I am curious to see what Romney's solution is.

The coming debates are going to be mighty annoying. I'm sure the word fraud(and others), as Malorn says, along with flipflopper will be all over the airwaves.

And I'm willing to bet a few bucks that if Romney gets in office...not much will change.

LegioX

2012-06-28, 11:31 PM

The Nov election has changed now. It's Vote for Obama and have massive tax hikes with socialized healthcare. Or vote Romney and have it repealed and start over.

Warborn

2012-06-29, 12:17 AM

If the law was honestly revealed to the country as a tax at the time of its passing, it would have never been passed. The President is a fraud and a liar.

He's a fraud and a liar for not following through on many of his big campaign promises, one of which was to provide meaningful health care reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does some good stuff, making it harder for insurance companies to deny people coverage and so on, but it still leaves you with the most inefficient health care system in the industrialized world. So he was a liar before and he's I guess more of a liar now, but ironically I guess the lies people who might have voted for Obama care about are ones Romney voters were happy with anyway (keeping Guantanamo open, staying in Afghanistan, etc.)

The funny thing is that the best outcome probably was for it to be nixed. With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act hanging around, it'll be tough for future Presidents to get the US off the terrible free market health care system it's on and bring it over to a far superior single payer health care system like every nation with any sense has.

e: As for the impact this'll have on the election, the bizarre hyperbole of "OMG HUGE TAXES AND SOCIALISM!" is pretty silly. The Act existed before this ruling. If it got repealed the GOP machine would have spun it as the inept President trying to impose his Nazi Muslim Socialist Kenyan views on God-fearing Real American Patriots. Now that it's been supported, the GOP will spin it as the inept President actually imposing his Nazi Muslim Socialist Kenyan views on God-fearing Real American Patriots.

CutterJohn

2012-06-29, 01:33 AM

I am curious to see what Romney's solution is.

Romney's solution is whatever will get him more votes. The man has few strongly held convictions, and fewer still that he wouldn't change his mind on if it would get him a few more votes.

Once again, douche and a turd. :/

Sirisian

2012-06-29, 02:13 AM

The court didn't change it to being a tax - that's what the attorney arguing it used as justification.
Odd, I've always heard of it at as a tax. This was brought up over at reddit actually with O'Reilly's comments (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201203260005).

ziegler

2012-06-29, 07:29 AM

Odd, I've always heard of it at as a tax. This was brought up over at reddit actually with O'Reilly's comments (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201203260005).

You didnt hear that from Obama and the democrats. They insisted it was NOT a tax. Go look up his interview with George Stephawhatever. He pracitically took George to task for even thinking it could be a tax. Going so far as to imply just because it fits the precise definition of a tax as set forth in a dictionary....it wasnt.

Also...bullshit on the tax breaks being the same as a tax for not doing something. That's spin and you know it.

This new found way of taxing will be abused by both sides.

LegioX

2012-06-29, 08:35 AM

He's a fraud and a liar for not following through on many of his big campaign promises, one of which was to provide meaningful health care reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does some good stuff, making it harder for insurance companies to deny people coverage and so on, but it still leaves you with the most inefficient health care system in the industrialized world. So he was a liar before and he's I guess more of a liar now, but ironically I guess the lies people who might have voted for Obama care about are ones Romney voters were happy with anyway (keeping Guantanamo open, staying in Afghanistan, etc.)

The funny thing is that the best outcome probably was for it to be nixed. With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act hanging around, it'll be tough for future Presidents to get the US off the terrible free market health care system it's on and bring it over to a far superior single payer health care system like every nation with any sense has.

e: As for the impact this'll have on the election, the bizarre hyperbole of "OMG HUGE TAXES AND SOCIALISM!" is pretty silly. The Act existed before this ruling. If it got repealed the GOP machine would have spun it as the inept President trying to impose his Nazi Muslim Socialist Kenyan views on God-fearing Real American Patriots. Now that it's been supported, the GOP will spin it as the inept President actually imposing his Nazi Muslim Socialist Kenyan views on God-fearing Real American Patriots.

Last time i checked the law will be fully implemented in 2014. Thats why you are not seeing anything.......................................... .................................................. .......................yet.

Any dumb ass that votes for Obama in Nov. Is voting for the downfall of America. There are other ways to reform healthcare, than this crap they call law.

Hamma

2012-06-29, 08:38 AM

How could requiring someone to carry health insurance be considered constitutional? It blows my mind.

ETA: travesty too

Agreed.

Saifoda

2012-06-29, 08:56 AM

Taxing somebody for not participating in a GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED program (which is what health insurance companies will become) is not the same as getting tax rebates/write-offs for certain activities i.e. business expenses, secured mortgage interest, etc...

...Oh wait, YES IT IS! Why? Because these things have ALSO become Government sanctioned programs! Hooray! :D Who do you get a mortgage from? A bank...

And Neuro, I know you think that Socialism is just the cats meow and that when a rapist burglarizes your home it's pure Capitalism, but I got news for you buddy...you're wrong.

What you describe, as the government mandating these things (and yes it WILL hurt middle class most), is NOT Capitalism; it is Fascism.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-29, 09:30 AM

Any dumb ass that votes for Obama in Nov. Is voting for the downfall of America. There are other ways to reform healthcare, than this crap they call law.

Hahahahaha, the downfall of America.

Not that we're spiraling into meaningless hyperbole or anything.

LegioX

2012-06-29, 09:55 AM

Hahahahaha, the downfall of America.

Not that we're spiraling into meaningless hyperbole or anything.

Yes. Lets do the obvious dumb ass thing and hit the American people with the biggest tax hike in history while the economy is shit. We have idiots running this country.

Exmortius

2012-06-29, 11:13 AM

ya by far the biggest tax hike ever. you think things were bad now. here's what will play out, even less jobs created....no small business able to hire and afford the healthcare penalties. doctors who can retire closing shop not wanting to be a part of govt capped income healthcare and those high quality doctors getting the f out of the states at even a faster clip. good luck finding a good doctor after this all kicks in. that is the reality of what will happen and when you have a minimum wage doc who doesn't give a crap about you cause his performance doesn't matter welcome to gov't healthcare. get ready to stand in line like the dmv.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-29, 11:16 AM

Yes. Lets do the obvious dumb ass thing and hit the American people with the biggest tax hike in history while the economy is shit. We have idiots running this country.

First of all, I'm not really sure it's really the 'biggest tax hike in history' because taxes are a bit more complicated than that. Who's paying the most? What brackets? When do we start? Where does the money go?

The beyond-useless War on Drugs has cost the country 20 billion dollars so far. (edit: THIS YEAR ALONE)

The War On Terror racks up something around a trillion every year. Even GOP doomsday-estimates of ObamaCare put it at racking up $1.6 trillion... in ten years.

In the meantime countrywide health care spending on the part of individuals (may) go down, meaning more money available for personal spending, meaning a stronger economy. Maybe. We don't know because it hasn't happened yet and frankly, even Nostradamus sucked at predicting the future.

If you listen for ten minutes to the circle-jerk of newsroom talking heads, you quickly learn that absolutely nobody has any idea what's gonna happen. If it turns into a giant failure (hello, War on Drugs) we can talk about it then. But saying "Well, that's it. They broke all of America" just obfuscates the conversation. Fox News doesn't want to inform you; they want ratings so they can charge premium rates for ad space and make money. Same with NBC and the rest of them; never forget that.

LegioX

2012-06-29, 11:57 AM

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-29, 12:28 PM

You don't understand it do you? Look at what is ahead. This healthcare law will drive up the price of health insurance premiums. Insurances companies will not be able to afford the rising cost associated with gov't regulations. Hence, people will drop their healthcare and go towards the gov't ala single payer system. It is all apart of the Left Wing agenda. You should see this.

It's like asking me why I can't also hear the voice of Alien Jesus being beamed into my thoughts, too. I'm sorry that I'm not a party to your delusions.

What about small business owners? Gov't regs say any business with 50 or more people will be required to provide health insurance for their employees. How in the sam hell do you think the owners are going to be able to afford/expand their business? It has been stated that nearly 70% of small business owners are not expanding/hiring new people b/c of the cost associated with this healthcare bill.

Except the 'costs associated with this health care bill' won't be felt until 2014 so... I think you made that statistic up. Or Alien Jesus beamed it into your brain through your Cheerios.

Pay attention to what is going around you. This bill destroy all aspect of patient/doctor relationship. Now you have a fucking fed in the middle of every decision you make.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. You seriously sound like a crazy person. At least its nice to see that you're pro choice.

All i can say is, they better be glad i do have health insurance right now. B/c i like to see a fucking IRS agent come and take my money if i decided to not buy insurance b/c the gov't demands me to.

In the words of Patrick Henry. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH.

Why hello there, Poe's Law. I haven't seen you since the Religion thread. How you holding up? Me? I'm just sippin' on this hot chocolate, watching this guy who watches way more Fox News than must be healthy flip his shit on the internet. Eh, it's alright. Passes the time.

Warborn

2012-06-29, 12:40 PM

LegioX

2012-06-29, 12:54 PM

This thread is honestly hilarious. Someone says the word "tax" and people start foaming at the mouth. How in the fuck did it ever come to this? How did you people get spun into such hysterics over such banal shit?

Do i need to show you all the times Obama stated to the American people "its not a tax"? Would you be mad if the Pres. directly lied to you about the entire process on how the bill was passed?

And just like every liberal, when i show facts they spout it off as nothing but dribble and not fact. Want me to put u in your place? Will not look good.

CutterJohn

2012-06-29, 01:10 PM

Do i need to show you all the times Obama stated to the American people "its not a tax"? Would you be mad if the Pres. directly lied to you about the entire process on how the bill was passed?

And just like every liberal, when i show facts they spout it off as nothing but dribble and not fact. Want me to put u in your place? Will not look good.

Did you ever rub two brain cells together and figure out for yourself that it behaves exactly like a tax, regardless of what its labeled for marketing purposes?

The saddest thing is not that he lied. Its that it worked.

So when SCOTUS came out and said, yeah, its a tax, a million republicans lost their minds.

All I could think was "Duh?"

All i can say is, they better be glad i do have health insurance right now. B/c i like to see a fucking IRS agent come and take my money if i decided to not buy insurance b/c the gov't demands me to.

Do you own a house? or have a kid? Right. The government gives you deductions if you do those. And innumerable other things.

Which means the government is taking your money because you decided not to do something. Perfectly legit. Has been for ages. How can you be outraged when you don't even know how your own taxes work? Boggles my mind.

Zolan

2012-06-29, 01:31 PM

This thread is honestly hilarious. Someone says the word "tax" and people start foaming at the mouth. How in the fuck did it ever come to this? How did you people get spun into such hysterics over such banal shit?

The person who said "tax" was attorney(s) arguing in favor of the healthcare law.

Everyone (maybe not you) recognizes the hypocrisy of relentlessly campaigning for support of the law and vehemently stating that the mandate was not a tax on multiple occasions in order to sway votes for it's passage, whether constitutional or not, and then having your attorney argue before the supreme court that it is in fact a tax.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/70/947.gif

LegioX

2012-06-29, 01:37 PM

Did you ever rub two brain cells together and figure out for yourself that it behaves exactly like a tax, regardless of what its labeled for marketing purposes?

The saddest thing is not that he lied. Its that it worked.

So when SCOTUS came out and said, yeah, its a tax, a million republicans lost their minds.

All I could think was "Duh?"

you own a house? or have a kid? Right. The government gives you deductions if you do those. And innumerable other things.

Which means the government is taking your money because you decided not to do something. Perfectly legit. Has been for ages. How can you be outraged when you don't even know how your own taxes work? Boggles my mind.

So explain to me Yoda, why did Obama say 1million times that it was not a tax??? Explain that.

It's simple. He lied to the American people to get this passed. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

Honestly believe it would have passed if all the democrats and the POTUS was going around saying..yeah its a tax!!! Pass the bill congress! we will just see the largest tax in american history, but it will be a positive!. Do you see how stupid that is?

Malorn

2012-06-29, 01:51 PM

Meh.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-29, 01:52 PM

Alien Jesus:

http://i48.tinypic.com/2up4l6c.jpg

h8 GIMP

[Political Party] is safeguarding our way of life and making this country great! [Other Political Party] are un-[nationality] [socialists/neocons/tyrants/foreigners/fatcats] out to destroy [country]! It's a secret [liberal/conservative] agenda and I'm the only sensible person in the world who sees it for what it is!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JRP3ldsfSBk/TGn9A7ZT8LI/AAAAAAAAATM/Orj5KRQzaVA/s1600/crazy-pills.jpg

LegioX

2012-06-29, 01:55 PM

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” – Edmund Burke, 1795

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 01:56 PM

How could requiring someone to carry health insurance be considered constitutional? It blows my mind.

ETA: travesty too

"If the Federal government has the power to adjust your taxes based on whether you buy an electric car, cover your roof with solar panels, use 1 btu of petroleum to create 1 btu of corn ethanol, take out a mortgage on your mansion, hire a nanny to take care of your kids, and all the other silly things it does in the tax code, it surely has the power to adjust your taxes based on whether you buy health insurance."

Thats from John Cochrane, who swing pretty hard to the right.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-29, 01:58 PM

Americans revolted against Britain over unfair taxation and government tyranny. Why does it surprise you that we get worked up over government fraud?

Colonists were taxed a great deal less than Englishmen living in England at that time. However, the combination of rule by a distant and disconnected government, combined with proclamations forbidden western expansion (and thereby limiting what would be extremely profitable business and land opportunities for the wealthy few (who were also, conveniently, the political leaders of the revolution)) led to the discontent necessary to spark rebellion.

Rallying the people around taxation was just the convenient excuse because a) nobody likes taxes (nobody), and b) people wouldn't rally around the real reason because it's too complicated. Much easier you just go *rabblerabbleTAXESrabblerabble*.

200+ years later and nothing is different.

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 01:58 PM

Yes. Lets do the obvious dumb ass thing and hit the American people with the biggest tax hike in history while the economy is shit. We have idiots running this country.

"The mandate can indeed be characterized as a tax, as the Court found. But it is not a massive tax hike on the middle class, much less the biggest tax hike in American history. The tax imposed by the individual mandate amounts to either $695 or 2.5 percent of household income for those who don’t have insurance and are not exempt based on income levels. By comparison, the payroll tax cut extension Republicans repeatedly blocked earlier this year would have added 3.1 percentage points to the tax and cost the average family $1,500 a year."

"The mandate, meanwhile, would hit a small amount of Americans — somewhere between 2 and 5 percent — according to a study from the Urban Institute. The number could be even lower depending on the law’s success: in Massachusetts, the only state with an insurance mandate, less than 1 percent of the state’s residents paid the penalty in 2009."

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-29, 02:01 PM

"The mandate can indeed be characterized as a tax, as the Court found. But it is not a massive tax hike on the middle class, much less the biggest tax hike in American history. The tax imposed by the individual mandate amounts to either $695 or 2.5 percent of household income for those who don’t have insurance and are not exempt based on income levels. By comparison, the payroll tax cut extension Republicans repeatedly blocked earlier this year would have added 3.1 percentage points to the tax and cost the average family $1,500 a year."

"The mandate, meanwhile, would hit a small amount of Americans — somewhere between 2 and 5 percent — according to a study from the Urban Institute. The number could be even lower depending on the law’s success: in Massachusetts, the only state with an insurance mandate, less than 1 percent of the state’s residents paid the penalty in 2009."

Dude get the fuck out of here with your facts and quotes and shit, can't you see the world is ending? Good men did nothing, evil has triumphed, and I don't have time to read all that stuff AND stockpile guns for coming Race Wars.

Neurotoxin

2012-06-29, 02:02 PM

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 02:02 PM

race war!

whites win!

Malorn

2012-06-29, 02:05 PM

Meh.

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 02:07 PM

last i checked europe isn't doing all that well. your countries are bailing each other out atm. spain and greece are just the beginning. this was another attempt for them to turn the states into more of a clone of a slow failing europe. you may be sick of it but we're sick of our country being turned into something against our will. majority of americans do not want this, we know what will come with this decision. i'm in my 30s now and i'm definitely concerned at what is slowly going on with the states. you can either blow it off or be apathetic or speak up. most of us speak up and state our opinion or displeasure with what's going on. it might not be long before that is ruled illegal or a tax levied if this keeps up......sadly.

The euro crisis has nothing at all to do with health care or the welfare state. I could explain it to you, but I won't hijack this thread.

It has certainly rallied the conservatives and ~60% of the country that disapproves of the law.

The only reason it has low support is because the right has done a masterful job of muddying the waters and confusing the debate. Remember the whole death panels fiasco?

When polled about what the ACA actually does the public supports it, even republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/26/poll-republicans-hate-obamacare-but-like-most-of-what-it-does/

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-29, 02:20 PM

It's almost like you're saying that the right-wing media engine obfuscated the facts in the nonstop war to win. But we know that's not true because the media is dominated by a liberal bias.

Malorn

2012-06-29, 02:26 PM

Meh.

Sirisian

2012-06-29, 02:30 PM

Blows my mind that we have to pay for health care. Of all the wealthy industrialized nations, one of the richest in history can't provide for it's citizens. We should pay for health care the same as we pay for roads, and should be able to access health care as easily as we can access roads.
I think elfailo summed it up well in his (sarcastic?) rant showing the odder side of American politics.

It's not stupid, it's smart. He knew he couldn't count on empathy from the self-absorbed lower middle class, so he played you like the chumps you are, and now your hard earned money is going straight into the dental fillings of a bum.

Hahaha. Welcome to Europe btw.

There are people that hold a very strong concept that funding for social services is unnecessary in the US and that things like single payer isn't the right direction. It's going to take a while for them to realize the only people they're hurting is themselves. Until then we have to take small steps toward solving the problems without angering them.

Especially now that congress won't allow real solutions to be passed. It's going to be a difficult year until reelection.

Competition will lead to lower prices, tort reform will lead to lower costs by insurers, and personal accountability will lead to lower health care costs overall.
Realizing that capitalism isn't the solution to the healthcare problem seems to be beyond you. Competition is the reason we needed change. It wasn't working at all. I seriously doubt any form of reform would allow a private industry to start caring for citizens like a proper single payer system can. If you read half the stories about the horrors of insurance companies in the US you'd realize they aren't a viable solution in the long run.

Figment

2012-06-29, 02:33 PM

This thread is honestly hilarious. Someone says the word "tax" and people start foaming at the mouth. How in the fuck did it ever come to this? How did you people get spun into such hysterics over such banal shit?

This whole thread seems quite hilarious. US polarised political doomsday paranoia propaganda is just comedy classics. Neither side has any idea what they're talking about whenever the other says something, meaning so much is lost in translation it's well... hilarious.

What's funniest is that the greatest opponents of aiding their fellow men are Orthodox Zealot Christians. "Aiding your fellow men is like... like socialism we pay for! Like it's like the USSR man!". Hilarious to see people make such statements and be so far removed from the concept of responsibility for fellow citizens and what basically comes down to obligatory charity that may also benefit yourself directly.

Anyway... Uhm something in line with the rest of this thread.

"YER RIGHTS, GO GIT UHM BAKK!"

Pitchforks! $1.99 per pitchfork! Get three for just $3.59! Only today: Free torch included!

:D

Never lose a good opportunity for business! :p

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 02:40 PM

That's not entirely true. What do you think Greece was trying to do with all the money they loaned at false interest after switching to the euro?

Greece technically weren't even allowed to join the eurozone because of their shitty growth and high debt, but fortunately Lloyd Blankfein and his homebois stepped up to the challenge of covering it all up in CDS' @ fantasy land exchange rates to make a lousy few million bucks.

US isn't Greece though. Admittedly the economy isn't up to par for US standards after the housing market fiasco+hunting down that bearded monkey, but it's nowhere near as awful as Greece was. It's not like you have no room to maneuver financially whatsoever.

Greece is the exception, and the only reason a greek default would be a disaster is because the ECB refuses to act as the lender of last resort and the germans insist on imposing ultra tight monetary policy across the eurozone choking off nominal growth.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-06-29, 02:44 PM

I think it's a little naive to think that health insurance companies would compete themselves into lower prices, especially when they were making so much money bilking us before. I mean they have until recently been more or less allowed to run wild and where that got us was a health infrastructure that is the shame of the developed world.

I don't think the government option would be necessarily superior, but hey... some people can't afford Premium and have to settle for Basic; but at least they'd get covered, and not just made more poor.

Meanwhile, speaking as a guy who is gainfully employed and has health insurance, this legislation will mean... hang on...

*taps away on a calculator a bit*

Absolutely nothing to me and likely everyone else reading this post.

Sirisian

2012-06-29, 02:47 PM

President Obama Speaks on Health Reform - YouTube

Malorn

2012-06-29, 02:52 PM

Meh.

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 02:56 PM

Health care is no different from any other commodity.

Actually it is as Kenneth Arrow outlined in 1963:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf

ziegler

2012-06-29, 03:00 PM

So many socialist idiots in this community. Really blows my mind. The government is slow and inefficient at everything it does and people want to give it more responsibility. Sheer stupidity.

Ask a Vet what they think about the VA Medical Care or Medicaid people what they think about it....we're going to be getting worse than that in a few short years.

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 03:02 PM

medicare and the VA are more efficient than private insurance.

administrative costs for private insurance: 14%

administrative costs for medicare: 2%

Exmortius

2012-06-29, 03:03 PM

in summary. other than the military....what gov't run service is run better than a private one? anyone......anyone.... bueller.... ?

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 03:04 PM

in summary. other than the military....what gov't run service is run better than a private one? anyone......anyone.... bueller.... ?

medicare

Sirisian

2012-06-29, 03:09 PM

Competition hasn't had an opportunity to work because of government restrictions prohibiting cross state insurance purchasing. We have only local choices, of which there are few. Of course they can jack the prices because we have no other options. And they have to have high prices because malpractice suits get to absurd costs and penalties. They have no incentive to lower prices and doing so is a risk.
Are you suggesting that private insurance isn't viable for a population of the average state? You're suggesting we allow insurance companies to run other insurance companies out of business so they can what? Lower prices? Once you let insurance companies loose across state lines they'll just grow. There's absolutely no incentive for them to lower prices or partake in competition.

Vash02

2012-06-29, 03:11 PM

Actually Malorn, government only has control over the purse strings in Europe(well, at least in the UK). Control is not in their hands and government has a healthy incentive to keep it well funded if they want to keep votes.
Then there is still the option to have private insurance.

Malorn

2012-06-29, 03:26 PM

Meh.

Sirisian

2012-06-29, 03:41 PM

I'm familiar with the oligopoly, but I've never heard of "perfect competition". Makes sense I guess, but it seems more of a fantasy or something you'd see under a dictatorship where companies are controlled very strictly.

What it should strive to become
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
Is this what conservatives believes will happen? This sounds like it requires a lot of control. I think at that point you're basically creating private companies that work for the government. That and it makes the assumption that companies won't work together to mutually raise prices, which requires oversight.

If it's possible that would be amazing to have a ton of insurance companies constantly fighting for customers such that none of them can ever be put out of business and can't gain control. I mean that's essentially what a single payer system would do with controlling everything.

Malorn

2012-06-29, 04:00 PM

Meh.

Warborn

2012-06-29, 04:23 PM

Do i need to show you all the times Obama stated to the American people "its not a tax"? Would you be mad if the Pres. directly lied to you about the entire process on how the bill was passed?

This is the point though. It isn't about him lying or not. He's lied his ass off while in office. He lied about stopping torture, lied about not prosecuting whisteblowers, lied about being easy on medical marijuana, lied about closing Guantanamo, lied about meaningful health care reform, etc etc. This isn't about him lying. You people don't give a fuck about him lying, otherwise we'd have outrage threads every week. What you care about is the word "tax". Even if it isn't a tax you'll have to pay, even if it's a tax that serves an important function, anytime someone even farts and it sounds like the word "tax" there's a shit storm across the spectrum.

Taxes are important. Taxes pay for your shiny missiles to blow up brown people with, and to give to your bankers so they can continue to play games with peoples livelihoods. "Tax" isn't a bad word, and it's fairly recently that it's become a bad word in the US. Reagan raised taxes numerous times and yet he's jackoff material for the American right.

So at least be honest with yourselves here. This isn't because your image of Obama as an honest guy has been shattered. It's because that fucking weirdo Grover Norquist and guys like him have told you that raising taxes is tantamount to raping babies, and like with everything else you've bought their spiel without giving it a second thought.

Malorn

2012-06-29, 05:30 PM

Meh.

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 06:29 PM

You really need to learn about economics. Here, educate yourself so you stop making idiotic posts.

The basics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

What US Health Care is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

What it should strive to become
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition

And when we move beyond random wikipedia links:

Actually it is as Kenneth Arrow outlined in 1963:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf

n2q0_matrix

2012-06-29, 07:35 PM

Who owns you? Anyone that can force you to do something, owns you.

Everyone has their line in the sand at a different point. An example is with Car insurance vs Health insurance mandates. ( brought up already) Some think one is OK but not the other, some both, some neither. Until you realize that it is a more fundamental issue, that these are high level and we need to focus on the most basic level, we aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

To me it is simple... if it is NOT VOLUNTARY, then it is bad, anti-liberty and against my basic Right to exist.
If it violates the NON-AGGRESSION principle, then is is bad, anti-liberty and against my basic Right to exist.

Until the mass of the populace gets to this point, nothing will change. We have to get to where things are so painful for most people before we will do something about it, and then most will do something detrimental first. Historical patterns are a bitch.

I refuse to be a slave to anyone. But pay taxes only so I don't get put in a cage. Think about that for a minute. Were we born with obligations? Where did they come from? What binds us to them? How do you define slavery?

One more thing. We are NOT A DEMOCRACY....democracies are mob rule. For this reason we are a Republic... a Democratic Republic. Propaganda in action people. If you say we are a democracy, then you have fallen for the massive rhetoric that everyone spews on the news over and over. Democracy, they need democracy, once they have a democracy, a democracy like ours. You fell for it....what else have you fallen for?

Democracies don't work, and I no longer think Republics do. What will? Governments are just groups of people, do we really need a government? Fun stuff to ponder

PS: Research Nullification
Check out SeaSteading ;)

ChargerCarl

2012-06-29, 08:03 PM

CutterJohn

2012-06-29, 09:04 PM

Consumer choice? What consumer choice? The consumer choice you get when you are scraped off the sidewalk and wake up several weeks later from a coma with a 6 figure bill?

Free market cannot work for many aspects of health care because the people do not have bargaining position for many things. Its 'Pay this or be in pain/disabled/die.', and quite often you are in no position at all to shop around and negotiate or shop around for better deals.

"No no, take me over to Mercy General, these prices are outrageous. Timmy, grab that ice box with my face in it."

If you want a boob job or lasik, sure, free market works wonderfully. Those things are not necessary to live. You can afford to take time to shop around for the best deal. The free market is not so great when you have cancer or just had a heart attack. People really, really, really want to live, and will pay anything to do so.

What do you people imagine life is like in Canada, Britain, western europe, australia, new zealand, etc?

Warborn

2012-06-29, 11:35 PM

What do you people imagine life is like in Canada, Britain, western europe, australia, new zealand, etc?

People live longer, fewer babies die, and less money is wasted lining the pockets of insurance companies. That's what life is like in those places.

ChargerCarl

2012-06-30, 03:13 AM

People live longer, fewer babies die, and less money is wasted lining the pockets of insurance companies. That's what life is like in those places.

also, everyone is insured.

Figment

2012-06-30, 04:25 AM

Not entirely true Elcyco. If you have your MRI done in Germany or the Netherlands, there can be differences in waiting lists and price.

Maybe you want the deluxe version and skip waiting lists and go to a private hospital. Maybe you want a different out of town hospital that's further away, but cheaper or with different waiting lists because they have more or less patients, personel, etc.

Maybe you want to get surgery by that one guy who's really good at it, but that costs more, or alternatively by an intern if it's not a big deal. Also, how often can you make use of it? Etc.

There's also differences in conditions under which the health threat occured, on which they do or do not pay. There's also limits to how much they will cover. For instance, new glasses fall under health care. With my insurance up to 300 euro is covered per year, but it's not lenses AND glasses, just one or the other and the remainder is up to me. So if you get cheap frames for your glasses, you can get two. Meaning it also depends with whom you are insured where you can get your glasses and what companies provide the frames.

Another thing is that I don't need to be insured the same way as someone else. Being a male, I don't think I'll get pregnant, so I won't need any care in relation to pregnancy. If you're working in construction, maybe it's more interesting for you to insure injuries out of fall risk and other accidents (very important because people often get screwed over here and there are many fall accidents each year that lead to uninsured injury! A lot of people work without ropes and then the insurance company can say: own fault - meaning it can also stimulate people to use safety gear by making them aware and prevent needing care at all).

There's a lot of things health insurance companies can compete on. The main thing is, how much risk are they willing to take that you need health care each year, meaning how much premium will they demand?

If you're not insured, it may well be that you're off worse in the end. If you never need medical care but suddenly get hit by a truck in a car crash and it costs $100.000,- to get your back patched up... Then I don't think you can easily afford it and at that point your life is ruined, you can forget about being a productive member of society and instead you'll be draining money from the state, friends and family. If only you could have afforded or were willing to get health care insurance then...

Another thing is, when everyone has health care insurance, the costs per person go down. Insurance companies fund health care by the collective premiums they get - costs, wages, new BMWs and office chairs for the board, etc. Either way, not everyone needs health care each year so they leave a surplus. Meaning if less people have to pay for the insurance of all the sick, they have to pay more surplus to get the same insurance coverage. However, if more people pay, then more can make use of it too, however, the surplus as a whole will be greater and it's easier for an insurance company to provide the care people need.

What does this mean for us? If you need medicine from the pharmacist and have a doctors receipt, most if not all the costs for the medicine will be paid by the insurance company and you only need to go and collect it. You don't have to think about whether or not you can afford it, which is what a lot of Americans do right now.

Health is a first need. It's not a luxury commodity as someone here described it. Health is also vital to an economy. An healthy workforce is a happy workforce is a productive workforce. It's in the interest of companies to have healthy, well-fed, happy and thus productive workers.

Still, the main problem with insurance companies is that they always try to get out of having to pay your bills. And that's also of course because there's always people trying to take advantage of them as well. This is where there should be heavy checks from doctor and consumer organisations to ensure quality and fair competition and practice. The second thing is that people should have the ability to compare health care packages in a really neutral fashion and tailor made to their needs. Lastly, one company might be a lot more clear than another, or have more small print.

So yeah, there's a lot you can compete with between insurance companies by offering different packages and care. And I do think it's a good thing as many people as possible are insured to lower overall costs (including to society). Just because they're too pigheaded to realise this enables them to do more with their lives and as a country, doesn't mean it's taking away their freedoms. In fact, insurance can ensure the freedom to continue living the way you want to live your life because you've got a healthy or healthier body or the accessories to make up for handicaps or ill-ness without crippling your relatives into debt and stress.

But hey.. BOOHOO DAY GOFERMEND R TAKEZORING YER FREEDUMBS.

Figment

2012-06-30, 05:59 AM

But...we're disgusting European socialists, how could we possibly acknowledge competition as a good thing?

Damn hippies!

Malorn

2012-06-30, 12:36 PM

Meh.

Vecha

2012-06-30, 12:59 PM

Where are the new hospitals in Obamacare?

In NYC we've had big hospital closings. In replace of the hospitals, banks and luxury high rises of course. For critical care and emergency care, I just don't see the there-there that HMOs or Obamacare provide.

Whichever side wins the debate of where the sheep goes, they're going to the same hospitals, and Mercy General just may be closed.

Yep.

We need an infrastructure bill...as well as a bill/something that persuades docs to go towards PC.

Nothing worthwhile will be passed until after the election.

therandomone

2012-06-30, 04:24 PM

So its cool of them to require us to buy car insurance if we want to drive a car but not health insurance?

Vecha

2012-06-30, 04:27 PM

So its cool of them to require us to buy car insurance if we want to drive a car but not health insurance?

That's been discussed the other side(conservatives) say it is necessary as you are driving on publicly owned roads.

The healthcare market is not the same in their eyes.

Vash02

2012-06-30, 04:33 PM

So its cool of them to require us to buy car insurance if we want to drive a car but not health insurance?

No, no, driving a car is a "privilege". Even for people who may live up to 5-10+ miles from the nearest store, its a "privilege" to be able to go and buy food.

therandomone

2012-06-30, 04:35 PM

That's been discussed the other side(conservatives) say it is necessary as you are driving on publicly owned roads.

The healthcare market is not the same in their eyes.

Well, with that logic then as long as you do not use publicly owned roads, state institutions and other things provided by the government then you shouldnt have to pay the tax, if you do decided to use those services though-pay it.

1. Revenue Act of 1942: 5.04 percent of GDP;

2. Revenue Act of 1961: 2.2 percent of GDP;

3. Current Tax Payment Act of 1943: 1.13 percent of GDP;

4. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

5. Excess Profits Tax of 1950: .97 percent of GDP;

And here are the top five tax increases from the "modern" era of 1968-2006:

1. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

2. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: .8 percent of GDP;

3(t): Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: .5 percent of GDP

3(t): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; .5 percent of GDP;

5: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; .49 percent of GDP.

Depending on your rounding, that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961.

....so we're complaining why again?

Vecha

2012-06-30, 04:49 PM

No, no, driving a car is a "privilege". Even for people who may live up to 5-10+ miles from the nearest store, its a "privilege" to be able to go and buy food.

I'm curious to know what definition you are using(there are several). Do you mean that people don't "need" to drive? Don't need to drive to a job/groceries?

Also, the logic behind connecting car insurance to health insurance has to do with responsibility.

With Car insurance, Responsibility in having at least basic car insurance in order to maintain some responsibility in any damage you cause on the road.

With Health Insurance, having responsibility in not putting the burden of your emergency room visit on those around you.

Many, many people go into major debt over hospital bills when they choose not to get regular doctor visits, maintain health insurance.

Who pays for those bills? They don't just disappear.

What is sad is that the individual mandate was, in part, a Republican idea.

Well, with that logic then as long as you do not use publicly owned roads, state institutions and other things provided by the government then you shouldnt have to pay the tax, if you do decided to use those services though-pay it.

1. Revenue Act of 1942: 5.04 percent of GDP;

2. Revenue Act of 1961: 2.2 percent of GDP;

3. Current Tax Payment Act of 1943: 1.13 percent of GDP;

4. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

5. Excess Profits Tax of 1950: .97 percent of GDP;

And here are the top five tax increases from the "modern" era of 1968-2006:

1. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

2. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: .8 percent of GDP;

3(t): Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: .5 percent of GDP

3(t): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; .5 percent of GDP;

5: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; .49 percent of GDP.

Depending on your rounding, that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961.

....so we're complaining why again?

I agree with you.

Vash02

2012-06-30, 04:55 PM

I'm curious to know what definition you are using(there are several). Do you mean that people don't "need" to drive? Don't need to drive to a job/groceries?

Also, the logic behind connecting car insurance to health insurance has to do with responsibility.

With Car insurance, Responsibility in having at least basic car insurance in order to maintain some responsibility in any damage you cause on the road.

With Health Insurance, having responsibility in not putting the burden of your emergency room visit on those around you.

Many, many people go into major debt over hospital bills when they choose not to get regular doctor visits, maintain health insurance.

Who pays for those bills? They don't just disappear.

What is sad is that the individual mandate was, in part, a Republican idea.

Sorry, forgot to put in /sarcasm. That's the argument that was put against me in the near beginning of the thread for making the same point therandomone made.

Vecha

2012-06-30, 04:58 PM

Sorry, forgot to put in /sarcasm. That's the argument that was put against me in the near beginning of the thread for making the same point therandomone made.

No problem...I get into the same issues with sarcasm detectors alot. :D

n2q0_matrix

2012-06-30, 05:43 PM

you know you have the choices not to pay your taxes, just be ready to accept the consequences of your actions.

That is a cop-out position. Justify why someone can force me to pay taxes. What is the morality of that? Where does this authority come from? How did any individual come to fall under it? How is this "freedom"?

There should be no consequences for not allowing someone to take what is yours, especially at the threat of violence, or death.

It is absurd if you actually question these things IF you actually support the concept of Liberty. Problem is, most don't or can't get pass the "it has always been this way" mental roadblock. Cognitive Dissonance at it's best.

Warborn

2012-06-30, 06:01 PM

therandomone

2012-06-30, 06:04 PM

That is a cop-out position. Justify why someone can force me to pay taxes. What is the morality of that? Where does this authority come from? How did any individual come to fall under it? How is this "freedom"?

There should be no consequences for not allowing someone to take what is yours, especially at the threat of violence, or death.

It is absurd if you actually question these things IF you actually support the concept of Liberty. Problem is, most don't or can't get pass the "it has always been this way" mental roadblock. Cognitive Dissonance at it's best.

Ya know people back in the day thought that as well so they created the Articles of Confederation first....theres many a reason we dont have that system, taxes were a part of that. Look it up.

n2q0_matrix

2012-06-30, 06:42 PM

You pay taxes because you take advantage of services that could only exist through the collective effort of society. You have clean, running water, cheap electricity, relative safety due to law enforcement, and secure borders thanks to a national military and diplomatic service. All of these things are the direct result of people working together, either directly building and maintaining these services, or financing them through their taxes.

If you don't want to pay taxes, it's actually very easy. Just stop doing any business within society. Find some nice national park or some other vast area of wilderness and live off of the land. If you stop participating in society, and your obligation to society ends.

If anyone did any of the above, they would be thrown in a cage. There is no opt-out feature. And this is what makes it involuntary.

I never mentioned anything about not participating in society, voluntarily. I would rather a free market supply those things instead of a monolithic corrupt entity we are enslaved to. Just because there have been great advancements in this world before I was born, does not enslave me to them, or give me the Right to take them. Using the above logic you mentioned, it would. Everyone has the Right to exist, so what gives one the Right to take from another? This has yet to be rationalized.

All of these things you mention can and were done without coercion and the direct threat of violence. We have done well in spite of the government meddling, not because of it.

The idea that we "need" to pay taxes in order to freely associate and interact in a mutually beneficial way is unsupported. Lots of people claim this, yet it is simply not true and unfounded. We did it before the government got involved...or did your government forced education forget to teach you that?

One thing everyone must remember here is that any government is simply a group of people. Not some magical parental entity....just people. So government is simply a concept, an intangible, a structure of power. You take that away and all you have is a small group of people telling the others what they can and cannot do. Well, what gives that small group that authority in a "free" society?

At core of it, people just want what they want and don't care too much about how they get it. If we have to steal, or hurt, or whatever...it's justified and the way it should be if the end result is accomplished. Everyone wants to think and feel they are a good and just person...but are they, when you really start to scrutinize what we advocate, support, and/or implement?

It is time to move forward, to move on to the next iteration of societal interaction. One that is actually voluntary, free, and supports the concept of Individual Rights. Doing it the same way and expecting things to get better is insane.

Question everything. Challenge everything.

Guns should be used for protection, not control.

When the Constitution was written, talking about Freedom, Equality, etc...we still did not have Equal Rights for woman and we still had slavery. Cognitive Dissonance...Men should be FREE...unless you are a owned...wait what?

Now, there was a movement to end slavery at that time, and some slave owners did just that. Granted it was very premature as slavery would not come to an end in America for a long time. Why? Because the mass of the populace was unwilling to give up what they wanted even when it flew in the face of what they believed and wanted for themselves. They wanted free labor, but also wanted to be free from their tyrannical monarchy. Willing to look the other way, or worse justify, the fact that they were in fact tyrants to others. Directly or indirectly via support of the system. The elimination of slavery in America only came about once most of the people were willing to see the hypocrisy and supported ending it.

Anyone see a pattern yet? The ideas I am speaking about are very premature as the mass of the populace is not there yet. But it is inevitable. Humans want/need to be free. I just want to see it in my lifetime, although not likely. Not until more are willing to face the absurdity and contradictions of the current systems.

Vecha

2012-06-30, 06:45 PM

n2q0_matrix

2012-06-30, 06:46 PM

Ya know people back in the day thought that as well so they created the Articles of Confederation first....theres many a reason we dont have that system, taxes were a part of that. Look it up.

Yes. I am familiar with both systems from the founding. More of us are starting to move beyond them. We are seeing the errors and immoral concepts. I hope one day more people see theft and initiation of force as immoral.

Vecha

2012-06-30, 06:49 PM

Everyone has the Right to exist, so what gives one the Right to take from another? This has yet to be rationalized.

I'd like to know how you "do not take from anyone"

Are you self-sustained?

Did you not go to a public school?(quite possible).

What food did/do you eat?(A majority is subsidized to make it cheaper).

Do you drive a car?(Those roads you drive on are maintained by local governments).

What do you want? Do you want to go back to a time when there was no government? When we were cut off into small communities?

The world is a big place...we depend on international/national trade.

n2q0_matrix

2012-06-30, 06:58 PM

QFT

"Taxes, are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society."
FDR

Nice sound byte. Feels good doesn't it? I use to think so at one time. Almost seems rational, until you ask....

Where did I sign on?
I have Natural Rights, where do these "privileges" come from?
Who determines these "privileges"?
Who determines who gets to be a member and who does not?
How come "organized society" cannot exist without this construct of government?
What happens if I don't want to be apart of this "organized society" but would rather make a different organized society?

This is just a sound byte to make people feel good about having their time(life) taken from them in the form of taxes. A brilliant form of emotion policing that squashes questioning the system.

But no matter how you word it...it always comes down to theft. One taking from another at the threat of violence or death.

Vecha

2012-06-30, 07:07 PM

Nice sound byte. Feels good doesn't it? I use to think so at one time. Almost seems rational, until you ask....

Where did I sign on?
I have Natural Rights, where do these "privileges" come from?
Who determines these "privileges"?
Who determines who gets to be a member and who does not?
How come "organized society" cannot exist without this construct of government?
What happens if I don't want to be apart of this "organized society" but would rather make a different organized society?

This is just a sound byte to make people feel good about having their time(life) taken from them in the form of taxes. A brilliant form of emotion policing that squashes questioning the system.

But no matter how you word it...it always comes down to theft. One taking from another at the threat of violence or death.

It is not theft. Its a give and take. I guarantee the taxes that are "taken" from you benefit you. Whether it is fixing your roads or educating future children.

With that said. We can argue about "how" these taxes are put to place in order to benefit us.

But it is not 'theft'

I work. I use the roads to my job. I eat food that is subsidized I use schools that are paid with by my taxes, etc etc.

If you don't want to pay taxes(waste your time). Then don't get a modern job. (though I supposed property tax will getcha).

We as a species require organization. We have for hundreds, thousands of years. We have always had a system in place. We all had roles.

It has evolved from that.

You still have not answered my question about what kind of society you think we will evolve into. I'm really interested how you think we will go beyond governments/organized society.

n2q0_matrix

2012-06-30, 07:21 PM

I'd like to know how you "do not take from anyone"

Are you self-sustained?

Did you not go to a public school?(quite possible).

What food did/do you eat?(A majority is subsidized to make it cheaper).

Do you drive a car?(Those roads you drive on are maintained by local governments).

What do you want? Do you want to go back to a time when there was no government? When we were cut off into small communities?

The world is a big place...we depend on international/national trade.

By do not take, I mean do not steal.

I like interacting with others and I like specialization, so I have no desire to be "self sustained". I like the idea of trade with others...just minus the government. They aren't necessary or desired in these types of interactions.

I did go to public school, as my parents did not wish to be arrested for me not going. However, since the start of the Department of Education our education system has produced poorer results while the costs have gone up. I would rather the private sector handle schooling. Right now you can get everything, and more, than what our government offers...for free. By entities that are private, not the government. The market has pulled this off in spite of the government.

Yes I eat food. Subsidized food...wow. So the government takes money from us, to give to people who grow only certain foods, which drives down the cost, which we then buy (unless we don't because it is something we don't want) then we pay more taxes so they can subsidize again, wait...what exactly did the government do that is beneficial?? The bad things they do are artificially inflate supply which artificially effects demand, which messes with market forces on commodities that they don't subsidize, which puts some businesses out of business that supply things people do want. Subsidies have been proven over and over to be bad for the free market and costs overall. PLUS, we then have to pay for the bureaucracy on top of it. Yes the people pay...for everything. It is a great form of control though, and surplus of certain things, to be used as leverage, I mean foreign aid.

I do drive a car. The roads don't need to be maintained by the government, we can do it without them. Like we did before. It is possible, if people would realize that it is possible and stop thinking it can only be done by the government...err people. Wait, aren't we people?

I do not want to go back in time nor do I think communities should be cut off. All of it is possible without a government. I am all for trade. Global Free Market.

cBselfmonkey

2012-06-30, 07:35 PM

Maybe if people stopped electing unenlightened halfwits and megalomaniacs, they would finally be able to trust ze guvment.

Noone else actually wants to bother with running a country. You either have to be stupid enough to think you can fix the problems of your country in a term or crazy enough to think you can fix the problems of your country in a term.

ChargerCarl

2012-06-30, 08:08 PM

That is a cop-out position. Justify why someone can force me to pay taxes. What is the morality of that? Where does this authority come from? How did any individual come to fall under it? How is this "freedom"?

There should be no consequences for not allowing someone to take what is yours, especially at the threat of violence, or death.

It is absurd if you actually question these things IF you actually support the concept of Liberty. Problem is, most don't or can't get pass the "it has always been this way" mental roadblock. Cognitive Dissonance at it's best.

Really, its yours? what about all the infrastructure (not just physical) laid down by other men, past and present, which enabled you to amass your wealth? wheres the morality in you not paying the share society deems fair?

Honestly, do you libertarian types actually think you'd rise to the top in the type of society you advocate?

There is no opt-out feature.

umm you know you can leave right?

n2q0_matrix

2012-06-30, 08:54 PM

Really, its yours? what about all the infrastructure (not just physical) laid down by other men, past and present, which enabled you to amass your wealth? wheres the morality in you not paying the share society deems fair?

Honestly, do you libertarian types actually think you'd rise to the top in the type of society you advocate?

umm you know you can leave right?

First, I shouldn't have to leave anywhere in order to be free, I was not born a slave to anyone or group. Either you support Individual Rights, or you don't.

Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. The whole does not get to dictate to the individual....IF..you support Individual Rights.

Also, it isn't about this notion of "your fair share". I am not asking for everything to be provided to me that is non voluntary. And again, just because it was there before I was born does not mean I must pay for it. Furthermore, who is this "society" that does the deeming?

As for rising to the top, that is subjective. Any intelligent sociopath can rise to the top of the government. Can you do it and still embody morals? Smaller group when you look at it that way. Financial success, yes many of us are libertarian minded. Many don't speak out because they feel it is futile to debate with those that cannot understand. But for me, it isn't about being at the top or better than others, it is about living my life as I see fit....because I own me...it is my life. The best life I can live is the one I create for myself.

I know what it is to be poor. I know what it is to be well off. I have lived in both worlds.

CutterJohn

2012-06-30, 11:34 PM

First, I shouldn't have to leave anywhere in order to be free, I was not born a slave to anyone or group. Either you support Individual Rights, or you don't.

Or, you know, have a nuanced middle ground position where you recognize that there are positions between anarchy and slavery, and some limitations and controls on society benefit all.

Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. The whole does not get to dictate to the individual....IF..you support Individual Rights.

So you think murderers should not be put in prison, because you think there should be no prisons. Gotcha.

:lol:

ChargerCarl

2012-06-30, 11:43 PM

First, I shouldn't have to leave anywhere in order to be free, I was not born a slave to anyone or group. Either you support Individual Rights, or you don't.

Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. The whole does not get to dictate to the individual....IF..you support Individual Rights.

oh I see, by "Individual Rights" you actually mean "The right to freeload".

cBselfmonkey

2012-06-30, 11:55 PM

Sounds about right brother.

Why does every good idea need an industry to choke it? Why does every good idea need a government to smother it? It is what it is, but it is getting old.

People need to smarten the fuck up.

Because control is power. If you can own it, or legislate it, you have power over it. And people like their power.

Vecha

2012-07-01, 12:03 AM

I did go to public school, as my parents did not wish to be arrested for me not going. However, since the start of the Department of Education our education system has produced poorer results while the costs have gone up. I would rather the private sector handle schooling.

Show me some credible sources that says private education is outperforming public schools. And I don't mean by just 1 or 2% points...I mean enough to get us out of 27th(or whatever it is) in math.

Figment

2012-07-01, 03:42 AM

therandomone

2012-07-01, 07:34 AM

n2q0_matrix

2012-07-01, 11:24 AM

Or, you know, have a nuanced middle ground position where you recognize that there are positions between anarchy and slavery, and some limitations and controls on society benefit all.

So you think murderers should not be put in prison, because you think there should be no prisons. Gotcha.

:lol:

The funny thing about being owned is that there is no middle ground.

Yes, murderers should be locked away. They have forfeited their Rights by infringing another's. This is already done by private entities. How we determine guilt can be verified by a third party system similar to the current justice system. Doesn't NEED to be by the government. In a competitive market it would be less likely to be as corrupted or gamed. Granted, these solutions need to be created, thought through, experimented with, and tested. We are not there, but should start moving that direction, not just throw our hands up and say "this is just the way it is" and deal with it.

oh I see, by "Individual Rights" you actually mean "The right to freeload".

Not at all. Individual Rights do not grant you anything from anyone else or a system, nor do they get to take anything from you. Individual Responsibility is what will determine how one's life progresses.

If I am an asshole and don't work well with others, then I probably won't do well when I am in need. The concept has a built in "get along" motivation, as no one HAS to take care of you.

Vash02

2012-07-01, 11:54 AM

In a competitive market it would be less likely to be as corrupted or gamed.
ahahahahahahahahaa
good one.

n2q0_matrix

2012-07-01, 12:14 PM

Show me some credible sources that says private education is outperforming public schools. And I don't mean by just 1 or 2% points...I mean enough to get us out of 27th(or whatever it is) in math.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/coulson_comparing_public_private_market_schools_js c.pdf

n2q0_matrix

2012-07-01, 12:35 PM

Yes let's have the private sector run schools cost efficiently with 500 children to one teacher, with 20 year old school books and a curriculum created by an independent entity with a corporate agenda where you can buy advertisement time into the curriculum for your religion, candy, games and political preferences. Oh and of course you will be charged more or not need to attend at all, because that is freedom in a free market.

No public oversight should be used cause it takes away your freedom and all that...

The oversight should be done by those with skin in the game...parents, or their hired agents that specialize in education analysis. There are lots of was to skin this cat, without just taking what the government allots us and claims is good.

The thing about the private sector or free market is that customers tend to get what they want, or the company goes out of business. So as a parent I would choose a school for my child that has a demonstrable track record and small class size. If my child was not doing well, I would find out why and if it was the school I would take them out and find another that would serve my child better. Try doing that in public school...well, if they finally let you. There is a mother in prison for putting down a different address so her kid could go to a better school. The government frowns on lying, choice too. She is actually in prison for that. Seriously...this is acceptable?

I started college at 15 and finished HS in 3 years. You should have heard the arguments from one of the high-schools I went to and their "logic" as to why I couldn't do what I wanted to, which was graduate early. One of them didn't want to honor my work done in college as equivalent to the "mandated" curriculum. It wasn't until I said to the Principal "You keep saying that I cannot do this, so show me the rule that says that.", that they said they could and would. It is funny how they were not interested in what was best for me, but rather what was easiest for them. This was a very nice high school in an affluent part of Orange County, CA. The crap high school I previously went to in Riverside, CA was very helpful in getting me started on that track.

n2q0_matrix

2012-07-01, 12:58 PM

:rofl:

Apologies for the laughter but this £ € $ can make a report say anything you want. People get paid lots of money to spout off "smart" sounding bullshit. We are fucking baking in NYC, but you know they still debating whether the ozone layer is fucked up. Humans are idiots.

Well then, if analysis is insufficient for you, lets just look at history.

When the government takes over a sector of industry, when has it gotten better? Let's use cars.

The near free market gives you....well let's be honest there is tons of regulation in this area that is not cost effective and creates pollution. Yes, regulation makes pollution legal whereas enforcing property rights would not.

So yeah, we have Ford, Mercedes, BWM, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Porsche, etc....

Government Made: Trabant
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html

Government Healthcare: Veteran's Affairs
There are several members of my family that have served and been mangled by war. You should see how awesome the government run VA is. And we are all about to get it soon enough.

Government Retirement: Social Security.
It is bankrupt and a ponzi scheme. I will never see a dime of what I pay into this.

Government Housing: The Projects ring a bell?
The housing bubble that burst in recent years. Trace back the cause, you have the government intervention into that market at the heart of the issue.

Space: NASA has done some amazing things. Why is it that SpaceX and Scaled Composites are doing it so well and so inexpensively? Why is NASA so bloated and not able to do the same things with such a huge budget and a 50 year head start? In fact, NASA's previous position was that only governments had any business being in space, not citizens or the private sector.

Shoot, the government is even outsourcing military now. Look at all of those private contractors in the conflict zones.

What does the government do that is better than what a free market can do?

Almost left out currency. Yes, they have fucked that up to.

:rofl: TROLOL

You can't argue that point I am guessing. Gotta roll with the TROLOLOL? :D

Vecha

2012-07-01, 01:07 PM

Well then, if analysis is insufficient for you, lets just look at history.

When the government takes over a sector of industry, when has it gotten better? .

Government Healthcare: Veteran's Affairs
There are several members of my family that have served and been mangled by war. You should see how awesome the government run VA is. And we are all about to get it soon enough.

I have family in the VA. They are doing fine. I had Tricare. It was beter than BCBS that I am on now. So there. Anecdotal versus Anecdotal.

Government Retirement: Social Security.
It is bankrupt and a ponzi scheme. I will never see a dime of what I pay into this. You are repeating what Conservatives want you to say. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/22/social-security-bankrupt-not-so-fast/ Here I can show something bias too.

Government Housing: The Projects ring a bell?
The housing bubble that burst in recent years. Trace back the cause, you have the government intervention into that market at the heart of the issue. And others believe the cause was due to banks dishing out loans to people who shouldn't have gotten said loans.

Look. I'm not for total government take over. I am in a middle ground that believes there should be a mix.

Extremes on both sides are not the answer.

Figment

2012-07-01, 01:33 PM

The oversight should be done by those with skin in the game...parents,

You mean the previous Products from Private Schools?

Yes, clearly they have an objective insight.

or their hired agents that specialize in education analysis.

By what standards? Government standards? Community standards? ISN'T THAT INFRINGING ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM?

Two can play that cookie.

There are lots of was to skin this cat, without just taking what the government allots us and claims is good.

Nobody claims it's good, everything needs quality control.

The thing about the private sector or free market is that customers tend to get what they want, or the company goes out of business.

Or the customers think they get what they want as long as they're kept unaware of them paying too much, getting a flawed product. I mean, imagine if companies created goods that could be life threatening. That would never happen, right? Wouldn't it? Who needs any organizations or laws as standards? And who sets those things?

Wait what? Government laws? No no no. The people. And what do they elec... wait elect... let me think... Oh yeah. The government represents the people through elections in a (proportional representative) democracy.

So as a parent I would choose a school for my child that has a demonstrable track record and small class size. If my child was not doing well, I would find out why and if it was the school I would take them out and find another that would serve my child better. Try doing that in public school...well, if they finally let you. There is a mother in prison for putting down a different address so her kid could go to a better school. The government frowns on lying, choice too. She is actually in prison for that. Seriously...this is acceptable?

Uhm... Public schools don't need to have forced entry, which means there can be choices made there too between what school to send to without going all the way to private schools.

I started college at 15 and finished HS in 3 years. You should have heard the arguments from one of the high-schools I went to and their "logic" as to why I couldn't do what I wanted to, which was graduate early. One of them didn't want to honor my work done in college as equivalent to the "mandated" curriculum. It wasn't until I said to the Principal "You keep saying that I cannot do this, so show me the rule that says that.", that they said they could and would. It is funny how they were not interested in what was best for me, but rather what was easiest for them. This was a very nice high school in an affluent part of Orange County, CA. The crap high school I previously went to in Riverside, CA was very helpful in getting me started on that track.

Ah, personal experience with bad apples making you biased to systems as a whole. See, critique is one thing, claiming the system should be smited out of spite is another!

But I'm sure there are NO LAZY PEOPLE who'd do a half arsed job in corporate run schools though! And I'm sure all the private ran koran schools (madrassas) in Indonesia create perfect model *cough*shariaabidingandxenophobic*cough* citizens too and there's no little point of critique one could make about working outside of a government approved system.

Suuuuure.

n2q0_matrix

2012-07-01, 02:01 PM

You mean the previous Products from Private Schools?

Yes, clearly they have an objective insight.

By what standards? Government standards? Community standards? ISN'T THAT INFRINGING ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM?

Two can play that cookie.

Nobody claims it's good, everything needs quality control.

Or the customers think they get what they want as long as they're kept unaware of them paying too much, getting a flawed product. I mean, imagine if companies created goods that could be life threatening. That would never happen, right? Wouldn't it? Who needs any organizations or laws as standards? And who sets those things?

Wait what? Government laws? No no no. The people. And what do they elec... wait elect... let me think... Oh yeah. The government represents the people through elections in a (proportional representative) democracy.

Uhm... Public schools don't need to have forced entry, which means there can be choices made there too between what school to send to without going all the way to private schools.

Ah, personal experience with bad apples making you biased to systems as a whole. See, critique is one thing, claiming the system should be smited out of spite is another!

But I'm sure there are NO LAZY PEOPLE who'd do a half arsed job in corporate run schools though! And I'm sure all the private ran koran schools (madrassas) in Indonesia create perfect model *cough*shariaabidingandxenophobic*cough* citizens too and there's no little point of critique one could make about working outside of a government approved system.

Suuuuure.

At least their would be freedom of choice instead of forced compliance. This is the core difference and brings us full circle. Individual Rights and Individual Liberty, one allows for it, the other does not.

The free market has bad implementations and products and services, of course, I never said anything to suggest otherwise. It just allows for those to fail and be replaced by something better. A market self regulates. It also does a better job of weeding out the bad.

Yes, I did have bad personal experiences in school, I also had really good ones. I understand the difference and that it is not black and white all or none. I advocate for freedom to choose, not to be forced.

as for...

You mean the previous Products from Private Schools?

Yes, clearly they have an objective insight.

By what standards? Government standards? Community standards? ISN'T THAT INFRINGING ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM?

Analysis to give information to the parent by those they feel are better able to review the effectiveness. Kinda like we use rating in various system today that are not done by the government, voluntarily. This is not enforcement, so I don't think you understood my original point. There is no infringing taking place with what I described.

To say it explicitly, because I have not done so yet.

Thank you all for debating nicely and directly. I appreciate it. One of the cool things about the PS community here. Lots of smart and decent people.

:)

Figment

2012-07-01, 02:36 PM

That's all well and good, but freedom to choose can also be done within a public system.

Freedom only gets you so far as your choices go. Freedom to choose between (bad) products is freedom, but not by definition better. There's no guarantee that private schools perform better. They might, or they might cut costs on everything to optimise the money they get out of schoolfunds (they would if they would have little competition and there's a minimum amount of children you need to even be able to run a school - meaning it's not like you'll have fifty choices).

So one problem with schools is that they are geographically bound to an area and therefore you don't have a lot of competition. There won't be 20 schools in the same community to pick from and a school's capacity is limited. So eventually those private schools will say "Stop. We got enough children, go find somewhere else." And if schools would be "competing" then the biggest school would have the lowest cost, have the best allowances for teachers and then you get whole different problems and might run others "out of business" due to being too costly.

See, if for instance a school had bad results, then they might lose entrants, lose money for the next year and thus have to cut on costs, might have to even resort to firing teachers or getting cheaper (worse) ones and end up being even less competitive. Competition between schools is one thing, thinking of schools as a free market where schools are companies that are allowed to go bankrupt is an entire other! The 'product' of a school is people! You can't play with people's lifes as were they commodities. That's unethical.

Whether or not it sounds socialist to provide everyone with good schooling, it does form the basis for creating chances in life. Chances to "live that American dream". Good schooling, government funding or otherwise, is exceptionally important to get ahead in life. Not just as individuals, but as companies and nations. And IMO that's worth quite a bit of tax payer's money. Personally, I see a public system as an investment in the economy. Even if people don't think they see direct benefits out of it because they have no children to be educated or something, there's still the products they buy, their own education they had, the housing they live and work in, the roads and bridges they drive on, the healthcare provided, etc. All of that wasn't possible without decent schooling. And decent schooling is impossible to provide to all without decent funding and enforcing that everyone has a chance to be taught.

Either way, it can become far too expensive for a lot of people to enter if private sectors would be allowed to run all schools. And what if private schools decide it is not interesting to build schools in small communities because there's no growth potential and no money to be made? Those people should just let those communities die?

In a fully private sector of education, a lot of people would have less, and a lot won't have any choice. And since less people would pay for a public system, those people have to even pay more than they would under a pure public system, just to even get access to the crappier public system. Meanwhile the quality of those public systems would diminish as the headhunting would ensure good quality teachers move to private schools. Private schools would reject people from certain social backgrounds and that'd be their... "freedom" to do, giving these people less chance to move ahead in society.

The thing is that private schools can monopolise areas and regulate entry themselves too, so no, it doesn't solve any issues. Maybe it'd solve some of yours, but is it a good solution for everyone? No.

Then there's what is being taught at these schools. There's a good chance that people who fund these private schools get a say in the curriculum. I exagerated a bit before, but there's a very good chance that religious groups create private schools where they ban proper education like good teaching on evolution.

The local parents won't know, or they will even be stimulated by their church to send their children there. Creating nice cattle for the local baptist church? Maybe a scientology school/church?

Eh... Freedom to get indoctrinated is relative. Especially if your parents pick the school for you.

So basically what it comes down to as the better solution, IMO anyway, is creating a bit more choice within the current school system you have if it's under some sort of district policy rule where you have to enter within a certain bunch of schools. But most importantly, make sure that there are standards that have to be attained and can be verified, while those standards are set by a direct representation of people (with a check of secularity and independence based on law, could be constitutional or a school law, don't really care which, as long as it's not biased to any group).

ziegler

2012-07-02, 08:53 AM

If you don't want to pay taxes, it's actually very easy. Just stop doing any business within society. Find some nice national park or some other vast area of wilderness and live off of the land. If you stop participating in society, and your obligation to society ends.

It's impossible. Unless you are illegal. If you are born with a doctro present, you are put into the system.
It is impossible to own any land in any part of the country without paying a property tax.

So, no, you cant withdraw from society. Ask a southerner what happens if you try to withdraw from this country.

Show me some credible sources that says private education is outperforming public schools. And I don't mean by just 1 or 2% points...I mean enough to get us out of 27th(or whatever it is) in math.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp

Google....5 seconds.

Warborn

2012-07-02, 09:31 AM

As I said, find some place very secluded and take no part in society and, I guess it needs saying, don't tell your friends where you're going. Have no phone, no address, no employment, no water or electricity. You'd be able to avoid paying taxes because you'd essentially no longer exist. You'd also die fairly quickly unless you have a lot of experience surviving in the wilderness, and you'd die of some illness before you're 50 anyway most likely. But you wouldn't have to pay taxes!

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-02, 09:36 AM

ziegler

2012-07-02, 10:19 AM

I don't usually come right out and agree with Warborn, as he tends to be of the party who, while being of relatively the same opinion as me on many political points, takes it to realms of kookiness I don't normally strive to, but I have to back him up here.

If you don't want to pay taxes, you don't have to. You can fashion a boat for yourself and take to the sea, living off the bounty of the ocean until you find some unclaimed island. There are numerous accounts of people living long, full lives on their own when stranded on islands. In fact, if you read some of the firsthand accounts, you'll find that many of them, aside from the loneliness, noted a marked improvement in their health. (One guy even ended up getting rid of his shoes, and found that he could run at a sprint through thick jungle; the pads of his feet became so tough).

Or you could wander into the wilderness, naked and possessing nothing, and fashion your own shelter, clothes, hunting weapons, and live off the land. It's 100% doable and there are people who make a hobby out of doing very much that; just returning to the wild for a little while; you can just make that your life. There are many places in the world where you would have ample privacy. You could just disappear.

you choose not to, because that would be inconvenient. I'm with ya; I wouldn't want to either. so I pay taxes, because I like cars, and roads, and police and such. I choose these things.

And if caught, you'd be arrested for trespassing, squatting and a myriad of other things. Also...A person doesnt have to do that, I can still purchase private goods from private individuals. But in your version, if I purchase something from some guy in a private transaction between me and him, some guy in washington needs to know about it and charge me for it.

So again, nice try, but no, you cant just unplug from society. 100, 200 years ago, sure. If a person was able to purchase a boat capable of traveling the seas in search of an unchartered island, then they arent too worried about surviving on their own.

But that is besides the whole point of our Constitutional Scholar, Harvard Law professor evidently doesnt even know what a Tax is....after all he repeatedly chastised us unwashed masses for thinking it was a tax. But since the SCOTUS decided it was illegal as a penalty, but legal as a tax...well...how about that...it's a tax afterall, but our esteemed president is either A) too stupid to hve known that....even when pointed out to him or B) an even bigger liar than Bush.

oh, and on the other side of the live by yourself argument, you can always pack up and move to mother russia, china, cuba, North Korea, or any of the other socialist paradises you dream of making america into....it aint hard moving to those countries....it's leaving that a killer.

cBselfmonkey

2012-07-02, 10:28 AM

oh, and on the other side of the live by yourself argument, you can always pack up and move to mother russia, china, cuba, North Korea, or any of the other socialist paradises you dream of making america into....it aint hard moving to those countries....it's leaving that a killer.

Yeah. Because when people say they want some state payed social services in their country they're really talking about turning it into a completely socialist state. Its like when people say they want a society with capitalist systems they really want to turn it into a plutocracy where absolutely everything is run by the rich. Or if someone says they want Christian values in their country they really want to make it into a western Saudi Arabia.

Get a grip man. People seeing benefits in some systems doesn't mean they would want them carried to the most retarded extremes.

Warborn

2012-07-02, 10:53 AM

And if caught, you'd be arrested for trespassing, squatting and a myriad of other things.

Getting caught and arrested is the least of your concerns. The point is that if you wanted to do it you'd die in about a week, because you've been dependent on society your entire life. Everything you enjoy in life has grown from the work that generations of other people have built for you. You take advantage of it all every day while asking why you should be expected to give anything back. You're on life support and you don't even realize it, and question how it's your responsibility to help keep the machine that gives you life humming.

Also, if you clowns don't make a thread about SCOTUS overturning Montana's anti-Citizens United law then you can all get fucked. If the PPACA is a travesty, and the permanent inclusion of corporate billions into your political process isn't, then you guys truly deserve everything that's coming.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-02, 11:14 AM

And if caught, you'd be arrested for trespassing, squatting and a myriad of other things. Also...A person doesnt have to do that, I can still purchase private goods from private individuals. But in your version, if I purchase something from some guy in a private transaction between me and him, some guy in washington needs to know about it and charge me for it.

So again, nice try, but no, you cant just unplug from society. 100, 200 years ago, sure. If a person was able to purchase a boat capable of traveling the seas in search of an unchartered island, then they arent too worried about surviving on their own.

But that is besides the whole point of our Constitutional Scholar, Harvard Law professor evidently doesnt even know what a Tax is....after all he repeatedly chastised us unwashed masses for thinking it was a tax. But since the SCOTUS decided it was illegal as a penalty, but legal as a tax...well...how about that...it's a tax afterall, but our esteemed president is either A) too stupid to hve known that....even when pointed out to him or B) an even bigger liar than Bush.

oh, and on the other side of the live by yourself argument, you can always pack up and move to mother russia, china, cuba, North Korea, or any of the other socialist paradises you dream of making america into....it aint hard moving to those countries....it's leaving that a killer.

The paranoid tantrum you throw in this post is delicious. Like a $40 sushi dinner, crafted specifically to my liking not just for its taste, but its aesthetic quality as well.

Thankfully, Warborn already pointed out the obvious bit you missed. So I won't reiterate that. I will instead build on it, by linking HERE (http://www.clusterflock.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Obamacare.png) a smarmy little breakdown of just how reliant you are on the socialism you hate, you moron. It's in every part of your life. You are alive today only because of that which you seem to hate the most.

North Korea indeed. You don't even know where you live; no sense in suggesting I go someplace else.

Also, the government has been taxing you penalties ever since you've been paying taxes. Do you own an electric car? Have you had a kid? If not, you got taxed more than people who did. Sure, electric cars and kids are both expensive. So's health insurance. Trololololo it's so much fun when school's out for the summer.

Figment

2012-07-02, 12:09 PM

lol...looks like the cold war is still happening in some places of the world.

I guess some will always be left behind.

Be careful, there might be soviet spies amongst the socialists!

Wait... aren't we liberals socialists these days by American standards?

That... that means... We could be spies! :huh:

:eek: EVERYONE COULD BE A COMMIE SPY!? :doh:

Especially Malorn, he's trying too hard to be a hardcore capitalist Libertarian. He must really be a closet-soviet anar-neo-liberal-fascist! :scared:

ziegler

2012-07-02, 12:53 PM

Get a grip man. People seeing benefits in some systems doesn't mean they would want them carried to the most retarded extremes.

Really....perhaps you should talk to the ones telling us to move off the grid completely because we dont think it is right that the Federal Government gets to set the insurance policies, and then force us to choose between them or be jailed.

That is what this bill boils down to...the DHS will set the minimum, and maximum (see cadilac plans) on what insurers can provide, and then we are required to choose between those, if we dont, we will then be charged a tax, and if you dont pay your taxes, then you are put in jail.

Figment

2012-07-02, 01:06 PM

Ziegler, be careful, you might end up being called an idiot for actually believing your own retarded strawman argument.

ziegler

2012-07-02, 01:32 PM

Getting caught and arrested is the least of your concerns. The point is that if you wanted to do it you'd die in about a week.

Maybe somebody that hasnt ever seen anything but concrete. You have no clue who I am and what I am or am not capable of. I actually know what I have done and capable of doing again. Actually...thanks for the laugh. :rofl:

So if you want to bring this back to reality we can, but if you want to insist on hyperbole, well then so can I, see you in the motherland.

Itssheepy: No, tax incentives to do something is not the same as taxing a person for doing nothing. That's simply dishonest spin and really not even worth a response.
Dont like my post, trying picking apart what I said. Rip me apart and tell me how Obama always stated this was a tax.
As to you link...I am not required to purchse electricity, matter of fact, I can sell electricity back for a profit...NOAA, not exactly accurate, I forget, are we freezing to death yet, or burning to death yet...which tack are they on again. Who still watches NBC/ABC/CBS for news? NASA...is Obama ending that as having no purpose? At the appropiate time...Guess he never heard of the International Date line...or the Metric system, or did Americans invent that?.....roads built by private companies on government contracts. Gas..ordered polluted and watered down by the EPA which destroys 2 stroke engines. Federal Reserve...reall? Ever heard of Ron Paul? I know...Federal makes you think it is a part of our government...

If your house was build to minimum code, you should probalby make sure you have home owners insurance and a good fire alarm system at least. Fire and Police are paid for by local taxes, and it isnt hard to google the fine examples of firemen standing outside a house and watching it burn because they didnt pay their tax. Police...you mean stenographers? An honest cop will tell you, and the Supreme court ruled, it is not the responsibility of the police to protect you or your house. They'll be glad to make a report for you though.

DARPA along with colleges started it, and Al Gore of course, but then it went private to the masses. The back bone is public but just try to get access to it without a private provider.

Your little 4chan post ...well...it explains alot about you.

Vecha

2012-07-02, 01:35 PM

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp

Google....5 seconds.

I'm afraid a six year old study still isn't enough to get us back into the top 10.

My point in my comment is only converting to private schools is not the magic bullet that so many conservatives believe.

Also thanks for telling me about Google! I had no idea it existed.

ziegler

2012-07-02, 01:36 PM

Ziegler, be careful, you might end up being called an idiot for actually believing your own retarded strawman argument.

Fuck me...you mean somebody on the internets might call me a name........

http://hatnpatch.com/zencart/images/ST-1013.jpg

I'm afraid a six year old study still isn't enough to get us back into the top 10.

My point in my comment is only converting to private schools is not the magic bullet that so many conservatives believe.

Also thanks for telling me about Google! I had no idea it existed.

No problem, but I usually recommend duckduckgo.com instead.

Not saying it is...but it's a start isnt it...what we're doing now sure as hell aint working.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-02, 01:47 PM

I love you Ziegler. More specifically, I love the fact that you're a cartoon. You're like the living embodiment of everyone hippies say about people who watch nothing but Fox News.

It's like, we all like to think that even the people who watch nothing but that horrid little network are on some level rationally thinking individuals who, when pressed, are capable of articulating themselves. For all that I'm on a totally different political track than Malorn, no one can deny that he can't at least rationalize his points, even if I think he'd dead wrong.

YOU though. Oh my god. you're like distilled nectar of the gods, for anyone who needs a living strawman to point to and say, you see that? That's the problem.

I love that you keep posting, if only because every time you do, you make the position of guys like WildGuns and Malorn look less credible, just through contact.

ziegler

2012-07-02, 02:03 PM

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-02, 02:09 PM

you should try your sychophantic adoration on somebody that it might actually have an effect on.

Haha! I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Please do not take my post as a reverse-psychology attempt to get you to stop posting yourself. Please continue. Tell me again about how our environment agencies aren't actually good for us because they haven't solved climate change yet?

Neurotoxin

2012-07-02, 02:24 PM

Start with 21st century industrialization and infrastructure, THEN have a socialist or communist revolution, and it will look completely different (and be more successful) than any previous ones. Marx expected that socialism or communism would happen first in industrialized nations where people have reached class consciousness. Marxian class consciousness has been repressed in the US since the New Deal, so people look at individuals in society as lower / middle / upper class, not workers and owners.

I feel like it really puts things into perspective to look at things in terms of owner / worker relations instead of lower / middle / upper class. A small business owner may not be rich, but they are able to exploit the labor of their workers to make money. Moneybag, who owns the means of production, hires Joe and tells him to make 8 widgets, the first 4 cover his paycheck for the day, the rest go to keeping the lights on and to Moneybag's pockets. Joe doesn't get to have a job unless Moneybag needs him to make more widgets. As the value of widgets rises, Joe's pay rises ever so slightly (if at all) so eventually it only costs the value of 3 widgets to pay Joe's wage, all the while Moneybags is earning more. If Joe should ever rise up and try to get more wages, unionize, etc, he's likely to be out of a job and be replaced by Jim and Jill who are each willing to make 8 widgets a day for the value of 2 widgets a day. Now Joe is out of a job, Jim and Jill are being paid less than Joe was to do the same amount of work, and Moneybag is raking in the dough.

That is just ONE part of how Capitalism works. If we can use a military to have destabilize an area, you can have a thousand Jerrys working for 1/100th of a widget's value. Hell they only need to make 1 per day at that rate.

That's fine until you realize that most of us are Joe, Jim, and Jill, or Jerry. More than 99% of us are Joe, Jim, Jill, or Jerry. Maybe we get paid the value of 4 widgets per 8 widgets we produce, maybe we get 5% of whatever everyone we manage produces, but at the end of the day Moneybags has the final word on whether or not we get paid or even get to have a job. And nobody wants to be without a job, right?

Figment

2012-07-02, 02:33 PM

I'm afraid a six year old study still isn't enough to get us back into the top 10.

My point in my comment is only converting to private schools is not the magic bullet that so many conservatives believe.

Also thanks for telling me about Google! I had no idea it existed.

I think this bit from that study is more interesting:

When interpreting the results from any of these analyses, it should be borne in mind that private schools constitute a heterogeneous category and may differ from one another as much as they differ from public schools. Public schools also constitute a heterogeneous category. Consequently, an overall comparison of the two types of schools is of modest utility. The more focused comparisons conducted as part of this study may be of greater value. However, interpretations of the results should take into account the variability due to the relatively small sizes of the samples drawn from each category of private school, as well as the possible bias introduced by the differential participation rates across private school categories

There are a number of other caveats. First, the conclusions pertain to national estimates. Results based on a survey of schools in a particular jurisdiction may differ. Second, the data are obtained from an observational study rather than a randomized experiment, so the estimated effects should not be interpreted in terms of causal relationships. In particular, private schools are “schools of choice.” Without further information, such as measures of prior achievement, there is no way to determine how patterns of self-selection may have affected the estimates presented. That is, the estimates of the average difference in school mean scores are confounded with average differences in the student populations, which are not fully captured by the selected student characteristics employed in this analysis.

This is more interesting in that study.

Vecha

2012-07-02, 02:52 PM

Not saying it is...but it's a start isnt it...what we're doing now sure as hell aint working.

Hmm...not in my opinion it isn't.

Both Private and Public schools are based on 50s ways of teaching.

Those studies on Private school are a great conversation starter, but that is it.

You take all the kids who need public school(as they can't afford it otherwise...and even if you gave them back their taxes that went into it, it wouldn't afford private schools) and place them in private schools and then we look at the scores, I'm betting money we'd similar results.

The way we teach our kids isn't working.

I'm not outright against Private schools, but I'm not for getting rid of Public schools.

We should look at other countries(and I don't mean turn us into Socialist Europe), Look at how they teach, the hours they teach, etc etc.

I personally feel we should have more exploratory programs rather than, Student sit in desk. Teacher teach to student. Student learn.

And...I think I derailed this topic...:p

ziegler

2012-07-02, 03:15 PM

Hmm...not in my opinion it isn't.

Both Private and Public schools are based on 50s ways of teaching.

Those studies on Private school are a great conversation starter, but that is it.

We should look at other countries(and I don't mean turn us into Socialist Europe), Look at how they teach, the hours they teach, etc etc.

Oh, I am down with longer school days, longer school years, and teaching american kids two languages or more from kindergarten, heck, that's the least we could do since we already do that for illegals kids.

Haha! I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

.............................:rofl:

ziegler

2012-07-02, 03:50 PM

Longer school days. Sounds like you put a lot of thought into it.

I know my kids go alot shorter days then when I went. And since the education has dropped severely over the last 30 years, along with decreasing the amount of hours and days of instruction...yeah...guess I am stupid for thinking that could be a contributing factor. You act like that is the only thing I said or construed it to be the only thing I think that matters....yeah..ok...

Figment

2012-07-02, 07:11 PM

I was under the impression that American kids already had much longer days and years than European. I typically had 36 class hours per week, 40 weeks per year.

http://projects.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/26243609-41/oregon-hours-states-require-requirements.html.csp

Apparently a schoolyear in the US requires between 810 and 990 hours.

We have 1040 obligated school hours a year in the Netherlands for high school. Note though that we have different levels of high school, so it's not completely equal weight as the curriculum between these schooltypes varies in weight. What the higher grade education (atheneum/gymnasium) level does in three years (out of six), others do in 4 to 6 years.

From some classmates of mine who did their last year in the US on two separate schools, the curriculum for the exam class was said to be comparible to HAVO-level or third year Atheneum/Gymnasium in the Netherlands. They got pretty bored.

Figment

2012-07-02, 07:33 PM

That's pretty pathetic then. VWO was DNAW already...

Too much width in the courses to be honest. I mean, I had 17 exam courses, Belgians 8 or 9.

Vecha

2012-07-02, 07:39 PM

I was under the impression that American kids already had much longer days and years than European. I typically had 36 class hours per week, 40 weeks per year.

It depends.

Every state in the USA does something different(well many do.)

Most Euro nations begin aug/sep and end near July.

Many in US begin aug/sep and end in June.

Again...it varies alot between states in the US.

However, just increasing the school day/year isn't going to help. I mentioned it along with other ideas.

Curriculum would be the top of the list, but not the be-all-end-all solution.

ziegler

2012-07-03, 07:31 AM

Rote works for getting the basics down.
Vocabulary, aritmetics as in multiplication tables, learning the periodic tables and so forth. For higher education it needs to be expanded upon, but for elementary school...rote. Another problem with the schools is lack of fear. Kids dont fear their teachers or their parents. The State protects them. The State is more concerned about using the kids as a way to get more funding, and gather information about the household than they are teaching 2x2.

Figment

2012-07-03, 08:10 AM

Are you saying they don't teach arithmetic in primary education in the US anymore?

I think he's saying the state is using children as human shields.

I deduce he actually lives in Syria.

Vecha

2012-07-03, 12:34 PM

ziegler

2012-07-03, 01:01 PM

lol. How the fuck can you NOT know how to do a division without a calculator? There's a 5-page article about it on Wikipedia. If you're a teacher and you don't know how to do this, look it up yourself.

Maybe the problem is that your teachers are dumb slobs that simply don't care about the future of those kids.

And let's see....between my kids, I have had them in 5 different school systems in 3 states and yeah....the teachers sucked. none of them required the kids to learn their multiplication tables. I did mind you, but the school/teachers? ....yeah right. Same with long division.
Vocabulary? ....*chuckles* My two oldest have both had their teachers ask me where they learned to speak like they do. Me. I give them word lists. I drill them on your, you're, there, their, they're, hear, here...Their penmenship sucks balls though...I cant help that, mine does too.

If you knew a little about the things they do to kids, such as asking them a set of questions in kindergarten that seem innocent enough but are to determine of the parents drink/do drugs/smoke/fight et. al. They report anything they can find out to authorities to investigate. Which does a considerable amount of damage to the school/parent relationship. You cant send a tylenol to school with your kid, but they'll take your daughter to get an abortion without your consent or even knowledge.

And our test scores reflect how good the plan is working.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-03, 01:28 PM

...but they'll take your daughter to get an abortion without your consent or even knowledge.

Wow, my experience with school was way different than yours. My class never got to go to the abortionist. :(

Sirisian

2012-07-03, 01:59 PM

Interesting. I read a few articles that indicated Romney didn't have a plan for Healthcare (http://theweek.com/article/index/230127/what-is-mitt-romneys-health-care-plan), but I didn't know it was that bad. I'm getting a feeling he actually supported the change, but can't say it because of party politics.

I think it goes to show how complicated this issue really is when the whole GOP can't create and propose a plan for fixing the situation.

Seems to be a libertarian type philosophy of state control for healthcare.
Romney says he would take the federal government out of the equation, and leave it up to the states to figure out how to make health care more affordable.

Still finding it increasingly odd that each state needs a separate system. People are people, no matter where they live. Seems like most conservatives would hate the waste created by having 50 separate systems in place instead of one. This is going to get complex if the GOP has their way in the future.

ziegler

2012-07-03, 02:47 PM

Wow, my experience with school was way different than yours. My class never got to go to the abortionist. :(

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/24/school-abortion/

Sirisian: Most federal programs....are ran by the states. Matter of fact...the one that so many like to bring up about the health care law....car insurance....you guessed it...state regulated. Not federal.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means...if it isnt specifically outlined in the Constitution as being under the Federal Government, then it is up to the states to take care of it on their own, or the individual.

This is actually better, because it means those bad insurance companies have to bribe the politicians in 50 states instead of just the Congress in Washington D.C.

Also...what a New Yorker wants...is not anywhere near what someone from Tennessee wants which is no where near what someone from California wants. The purpose of the Federal government was never meant to be a central government, because history repeatedly shows us that a central government becomes corrupt and oppresses it's people, not a matter of it, just when.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-03, 02:57 PM

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/24/school-abortion/

Ah, so the girl wanted to abort the pregnancy, which is legal, and the health professional who has a signed release by the mother of the girl provided what was (and is) perfectly legal medical advice, and the girl of her own volition went to a medical professional and had an abortion.

I like how it makes a point of stating what the mother assumed the form was for, as if her assumptions meant dick in a legal sense.

Sounds like in Washington state doctor-patient confidentiality extends to minors. No laws broken. Nice to see the system is working; that is, if you have any respect for state's rights.

Sirisian

2012-07-03, 03:15 PM

This is actually better, because it means those bad insurance companies have to bribe the politicians in 50 states instead of just the Congress in Washington D.C.
Requiring more transparency and better online integration for information is the solution for this. Separating it out at the state level so people have to bribe more people is a really poor solution and pessimistic attitude toward the situation. The other problem is localized corruption is harder to track. Less eyes are watching for it, and the media tends to not address it. I personally believe in high accountability and and oversight for easy whistleblowing within the system. Having centralized systems are very nice for that if designed correctly. (That's a big if).

Also...what a New Yorker wants...is not anywhere near what someone from Tennessee wants which is no where near what someone from California wants. The purpose of the Federal government was never meant to be a central government, because history repeatedly shows us that a central government becomes corrupt and oppresses it's people, not a matter of it, just when.
What one New Yorker wants isn't what another one wants. Designing a flexible location independent system seems better. One of the reasons I've always been for a national single payer system. It works well for everyone if designed correctly. Then again I tend to be overly optimistic about the government's ability to implement things. On the other hand believing that a central government is less corrupt than centralized government seems naive. It just creates localized damage that's less accountable.

I do understand the concept though that a decentralized solution can promote localized oversight and checks. One might want to take a middle ground and go with a government funded pool that distributes to the state level for administration. You'd kind of require it for a proper healthcare system anyway.

Vecha

2012-07-03, 10:49 PM

Maybe the problem is that your teachers are dumb slobs that simply don't care about the future of those kids.

Getting "better" teachers wouldn't fix the issue.

It is an assortment of issues colliding at once.

Classroom Sizes. Curriculum. Focus on Test Scores. Slacking Teachers. Uncaring parents unlike Ziegler. and much, much more.

Getting rid of Tenure, firing teachers will only help so much.

Malorn

2012-07-04, 01:21 PM

Meh.

Figment

2012-07-04, 02:22 PM

As I understand it (most if not all) US states don't really have a splitting of high school types regarding curriculum and workload depending primarily on student IQ, correct?

This would IMO be one of the most predominant reasons why results could lack with respect to other nations. The average performance of students when both good and bad students are lumped together should be lower after all. On top of that I can also well imagine it holds back a lot of good students when they're surrounded by less than bright other students and they have to keep the same pace as those around them. Similarly, those that are lagging behind could do better with a school type that's more suited and stimulating for them.

So wouldn't you say that a school system (whether public or not, though public is easier to facilitate for all and education being in the interest of everyone) should take in account the educational potential and capacity of students?

Of course that does require proper non-religious brainwashing education and the capacity on the end of the teacher to recognise potential. Including in those students and children who may have a social handicap like a language deficiency.

Oh and it encourages individual freedom to get ahead further in life, of course. ;)

Sirisian

2012-07-04, 03:29 PM

As I understand it (most if not all) US states don't really have a splitting of high school types regarding curriculum and workload depending primarily on student IQ, correct?
Depends. To an extent we do that. When I was in HS we had AP classes for english, math, chemistry, and physics that separated smart students from average students. For really intelligent students they had them dual enroll at the local university which a few students did. We also had vocational education in very specific trades like computer programming, networking, culinary arts, machining, and tons of other very specialized classes. I imagine it varies widely across the US though. Some schools give students tons of options like mine did.

Malorn

2012-07-04, 04:39 PM

Meh.

Figment

2012-07-05, 03:19 AM

So would you say that system could use more work, or at the very least be more properly enforced throughout the public school system if 'local culture' holds people back? Because there's not much choice in being part of a local culture.

ziegler

2012-07-05, 10:03 AM

Of course that does require proper non-religious brainwashing education and the capacity on the end of the teacher to recognise potential. Including in those students and children who may have a social handicap like a language deficiency.

Why..thats racist!

Figment

2012-07-05, 08:57 PM

Why..thats racist!

I notice the ironic undertone and intention, but for the sake of argument: How is applying the same standard of intellect to recognise a person who simply has a certain intellectual potential, but needs more time to compensate for having a false social start?

Meaning that just because someone doesn't speak a language sufficiently, though IQ being equaly high, they get told they simply need to find a way to overcome that, rather than dismissed as incapable. For example by working harder in extra language classes.

Note, I've seen it happen to a dutch chinese girl who herself was fully integrated, speaks perfect dutch, had a similar grammar school test result as me. Despite already helping in the restaurant of her parents who spoke next to no dutch. But because of her parents 'not being able to support her with homework', the teacher recommended her to go to mavo, instead of gymnasium or atheneum level. At the time that was three levels lower. Despite working in the restaurant every day, she ended up acing Havo (level higher) with ease, but that is too low a level to get directly into university. She could have done even better, but parents and teacher held her back.

Parents in part also because she was the second eldest. With the third being a boy and the eldest being most important she got less support. Mostly a culture determined priority thing.

So is it racist to make that analysis properly so she could have done much better?

ziegler

2012-07-06, 10:22 AM

So is it racist to make that analysis properly so she could have done much better?

Of course it isnt. But that wont keep it from being labeled as such. I so hate hearing how so much stuff is racist. These people need to go back and talk to people who lived under real racism, what we have today is not even close.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-06, 11:30 AM

Of course it isnt. But that wont keep it from being labeled as such. I so hate hearing how so much stuff is racist. These people need to go back and talk to people who lived under real racism, what we have today is not even close.

So because things were worse before, they aren't bad now?

We used to jail and execute homosexuals in the past, so merely discriminating against them today is alright?

ziegler

2012-07-07, 04:29 PM

So because things were worse before, they aren't bad now?

We used to jail and execute homosexuals in the past, so merely discriminating against them today is alright?

No it means quit acting like nothing has gotten better, and take advantage of the leveled playing field.

So far as that is concerned, everyone is discriminated against. I live in the bible belt and have long hair. I get discriminated against all the time.
Gay is something else all together in my mind....when I interview someone, how would I know they are gay? Their looks? It's possible to look "normal" and be gay. Who at work needs to know you are gay? ....nobody.
If you are speaking of gay marriage, I am all for that as soon as I can marry my girlfriend so me and my wife have a play partner we can carry insurance on and claim on our taxes. If gay marriage is allowed, I should be allowed to practice polygamy....at least mine has historical precedence. There have always been gays, I dont think I know of one culture in the past though that had gay marriage. Feel free to link me one.

therandomone

2012-07-07, 04:42 PM

No it means quit acting like nothing has gotten better, and take advantage of the leveled playing field.

So far as that is concerned, everyone is discriminated against. I live in the bible belt and have long hair. I get discriminated against all the time.
Gay is something else all together in my mind....when I interview someone, how would I know they are gay? Their looks? It's possible to look "normal" and be gay. Who at work needs to know you are gay? ....nobody.
If you are speaking of gay marriage, I am all for that as soon as I can marry my girlfriend so me and my wife have a play partner we can carry insurance on and claim on our taxes. If gay marriage is allowed, I should be allowed to practice polygamy....at least mine has historical precedence. There have always been gays, I dont think I know of one culture in the past though that had gay marriage. Feel free to link me one.
I just have one question for you, how do you equate polygamy to gay marriage? Its more like if a straight couple can get married a gay one should be too.

Warhound

2012-07-07, 05:05 PM

text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

Apparently the early roman empire had allowed same sex marriage in the form of "Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles." Well damn looks like there was a case of same sex marriage. Plus there was other cases of it in the early roman empire, before the good christian emperors Constantius II and Constans outlawed it.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-08, 12:58 PM

If gay marriage is allowed, I should be allowed to practice polygamy....at least mine has historical precedence. There have always been gays, I dont think I know of one culture in the past though that had gay marriage. Feel free to link me one.

1. Why would legalizing gay marriage make polygamy viable? That's like saying if we legalize pot, we should also legalize heroin. They're two different things, and require individual perspectives and conversations. That's a logical fallacy and shame on you for not knowing better.

Most instances of polygamy that we have observed have involved abusive situations.Observe the FLDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints). We have not seen any pattern of abuse, domestic or otherwise, in homosexual marriages that in any way make them different from heterosexual marriages.

2. Why are we looking at cultures of the past for our moral barometer? Just a few hundred years ago it was legal to own other human beings as property in large portions of the western world. I'm not sure we should be looking to these societies as ethical examples. Rather, I feel we should instead be setting the example for future generations.

ziegler

2012-07-09, 09:09 AM

You're really going to say there isnt contraversy with gay and pedophilia? Besides that though, as there are perverts everywhere. NAMBLA...google it if you dont know what it is.

What is the difference between 2 consenting adults and 3 consenting adults? The FLDS was an excommunicated Cult of the Mormons. What about Islam? They are the religion of peace and condone polygamy. So long as everyone involved is there of their own free will, why does the government get to say if I can be married to only one person? What ill comes of it? None, it is the bigotry of society that keeps me from being able to bring our girlfriend completely into the folds of our family?

I would point out that California is now considering or has made it to where a child can have more than two parents....

I just have one question for you, how do you equate polygamy to gay marriage? Its more like if a straight couple can get married a gay one should be too.

If marriage is a civil contract, and it is about loving partnership, then why should you or anyone else be allowed to define the constraints of the relationship between consenting adults?

Can three people not love each other equally? Check out sisterwives.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-09, 09:37 AM

You're really going to say there isnt contraversy with gay and pedophilia? Besides that though, as there are perverts everywhere. NAMBLA...google it if you dont know what it is.

Do your homework. The connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is a myth and has been thoroughly and conclusively debunked. (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) This is old information. Your ignorance is showing; cover it up.

What is the difference between 2 consenting adults and 3 consenting adults? The FLDS was an excommunicated Cult of the Mormons. What about Islam? They are the religion of peace and condone polygamy. So long as everyone involved is there of their own free will, why does the government get to say if I can be married to only one person? What ill comes of it? None, it is the bigotry of society that keeps me from being able to bring our girlfriend completely into the folds of our family?

[...]

If marriage is a civil contract, and it is about loving partnership, then why should you or anyone else be allowed to define the constraints of the relationship between consenting adults?

Can three people not love each other equally? Check out sisterwives.

I will state again that the conversation about homosexual marriage legality, and polygamist legality, are two separate conversations. Homosexuality is a mind-state you can be born with. Polygamy is not. It's an entirely different social contract and your attempts to link the two are a fallacy and just go to show how little actual evidence you have to suggest that homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

There is comprehensive research to suggest that polygamy can be harmful. (http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/polygamy_021209.pdf) It's not a slam-dunk, of course... there are certainly scenarios that could be cited where all parties are consenting and healthy; the research does not claim that polygamy is negative in an absolute sense. Rather, it suggests that polygamy trends towards harmful scenarios and the reasonable expectation would be that it would not be a healthy lifestyle for all parties, and that consent may not be a deciding factor.

Moreover, it's important to realize that the issues with polygamy that make it morally questionable are entirely unique to the practice of polygamy. A line cannot be drawn between the morality of gay marriage and the morality of polygamy, because polygamy is so different and poses it's own unique challenges. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Figment

2012-07-09, 01:07 PM

But Sheppy, it's so much easier to lump everything together that relates to the word "sex" and isn't explicitly understood nor cared for by the person making the generalisations and links! D:

You're undermine everything they stand for!

Next you'll say having sex with animals is nothing like a woman having sex with a man, as you can't make the comparison just because both may involve a penis and one is consenting and the other isn't, because in theory the woman may not be consenting either and aaaargh someone's brain is about the explode by now! D:

<3

ziegler

2012-07-09, 02:31 PM

Figment

2012-07-09, 02:55 PM

So how does Romney feel about polygamy? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh dear, mormons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormons). :)

To be fair. Hit under the belt really, but yes. Good question. He tends to avoid the answer by stating his grandfather wasn't a polygamist (didn't marry more than one wife, which could have reasons like others having taken all the American women already and them having migrated to catholic Mexico in flight of a ban on polygamous weddings :p). Meaning he does not imply he was against it, or didn't support or approve of it, just that they never practiced it.

http://www.inquisitr.com/222879/mitt-romneys-polygamist-family-past-could-be-a-sore-spot-on-campaign-trail/

Again, it also doesn't mean they did support it, his parents supported it or that he supports it.

More so, only splinter groups of the mormon churches are still said to practice polygamy. Communities that fled the use in 1890 typically did just that. Including the one his father was born and raised in. However, that same father did not stay there, so it's well possible he didn't quite agree with it.

Either way, suggesting Romney supports plural marriage is somewhat pushing it right now, since his direct family has only practiced monogamy and he's no exception. Question of course is, is that because he believes that's how it should be, or because it's illegal now? :)

But, is it relevant? One cannot honestly think that even if he'd get into office, he'd find the support to change that. It's a non-issue and a private matter, tbh.

Either way, I am not taking the stance that all homosexuals are molesters or deviants or vice versa. I'm not gay...but I am deviant

But that still doesnt invalidate my stance of....if 3 adults enter into a marriage, it is not the governments place to tell those 3 consenting adults that they cant enter into a marriage.

I'm going to cut up these quotes and call you a hypocrite.

How is it okay for three consenting adults to marry, of which two are at least of the same sex, but not for two?

ziegler

2012-07-09, 03:28 PM

I'm going to cut up these quotes and call you a hypocrite.

How is it okay for three consenting adults to marry, of which two are at least of the same sex, but not for two?

how is that? I stated I would support gay marriage as soon as polygamy is allowed as well.

It would be like....I only agree with equal rights for blacks, if asians can have equal rights as well.

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-09, 04:02 PM

I am thinking you didnt actually read the link you gave on polygamy. It seems to actually support it or shows that the negative parts of it comes from religious beliefs practiced in the family and not the actual polygamy itself.

The other link goes to poke holes in the way the studies were conducted, but it doesnt actually provide any actual study that disproves those findings either. They just say....this isnt done correctly so that invalidates the findings. That isnt the same thing as doing your own study and it's findings show different results. NAMBLA is still out there and doing fine.

Going so far as to say...well, pedophilia is liking prepubescent children, therefore that isnt the same as child molestation of teenagers, and that invalidates the results. Splitting fine hairs it is.

Either way, I am not taking the stance that all homosexuals are molesters or deviants or vice versa. I'm not gay...but I am deviant.

But that still doesnt invalidate my stance of....if 3 adults enter into a marriage, it is not the governments place to tell those 3 consenting adults that they cant enter into a marriage. I also didnt see anything in that polygamy paper about swinging or the polygamous relationships that exist through that lifestyle, they only attacked the religious ones and the problems come from the religious teachings/beliefs, not the polygamy itself.

Once we get through with tickling this one...we can start on incest.

First off, I'm not sure what you're looking for in those studies. I don't think you really understand how science works. You see, it's not like religion. It doesn't deal with absolutes. What science does is collect evidence and then make assumptions based on that evidence. We have a lot of evidence that suggests gravity exists, so we assume it will continue to do so unless there is evidence to suggest that it might not.

Also, proper science is always conducted with a full attention to honesty. If a study has potential flaws, those flaws are mentioned; not doing so is intellectually dishonest and bad science. So you see, the more honest a study is in its findings and methods, the more you can trust the results.

Also, if you read through the entire study (about the myth of homosexuality being linked to pedophilia) you will find that despite some of the flaws located in the study, the preponderance of evidence on display suggests no link. Be wary of your confirmation bias. If you don't know what that is, wikipedia it.

On to your comments about polygamy.

You're still not getting what I'm saying. I'll spell it out slowly, in big words, so that it's as clear as I can make it in the English language. Propping up polygamy as a counter to homosexual marriage is a fallacy, because the implied moral flaws with polygamy don't exist in monogamous homosexual relationships. There is no common link, other than the fact that sex and marriage is involved. Apples and oranges are also both fruits, but you cannot say you don't like apples because you bit into an orange once and didn't like the taste of citrus. They are different things and bringing up polygamy is a smokescreen that betrays how little actual solid evidence you have on hand to suggest that gay marriage is bad; we would have heard of it by now.

If you want to make a case for polygamy, go for it. I'm dead serious. I'll post in that thread. You're right; there is evidence to suggest that certain polygamist relationships can work. The legality of such a thing is certainly in question, and I don't feel that the evidence is, as I said, a slam-dunk. But do not bring it up as a counter to gay marriage because they are not even close to the same thing.

CutterJohn

2012-07-09, 10:58 PM

ItsTheSheppy

2012-07-10, 06:23 AM

And whats wrong with polygamy anyway? We can't make gay marriage legal because then polygamy would be legal!

Yeah? And? Why isn't it legal? It is not my business how or with whom consenting adults wish to arrange their relationships. In fact, I really can't think of anything that is less my business.

At the risk of derailing the thread further, a large enough portion of polygamist situations have been found to be abusive, restrictive, or hazardous to children's development that there is a reasonable secular case against it. The kicker here is informed consent; in many cases, the women feel like they don't have a choice, not that they're making the choice to be married to a polygamist fully conscious of the opportunities available to them.

This is my principle objection to the Amish. For all that they allow their young adults to go out into the world and experience it before making their 'choice', the choice isn't entirely informed. Think about it; their family, friends, and entire support structure is rooted in their home community; they are likely to return to it at first opportunity because they don't know anything else. Each generation is raised dependent on their insular community, so the consent isn't informed.