Universal Health Care scam, congressional aid admits US health care "good" (part 3 of 6.)

[texasc4]

Obama the Dead is talking to you:

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

Thomas Jefferson

[xaoslegend]

and each of these corporations dominating huge swaths of choice making in america, keeping secrets, controlling economics and applying brutal force through surrogates and contractors (the knight errant lawyers to silence and punish in civil court, the assassins in 3rd world banana republics killing union organizers ect) and they determine through money the lobbyists and media, and by function of that the representatives and the voters themselves. Power must always be held, and only safe with us.

[xaoslegend]

these choices are always made by someone, and if the people don't have the choice and representatives don't, some private party does all to themselves or their class of people. You can see this division in the powers of choice in society clearly in the example of the catholic church throughout history ad their cardinals and popes determining many policies for many people, in america speech and economic policy are chosen by the corporation and their beneficiaries pure and simple.

[xaoslegend]

look at strongarm ruled hyper-hierarchical 3rd world societies to see the economic result of such structures of society. The more free countries are of this level of oppression the better they do (there are exceptions of opportunity, America has had much freedom, but historically there are similarly free places, but without the geographic and chance advantages such as the Louisiana purchase and ww2) That freedom means popular choice.

[xaoslegend]

Together we are the most powerful species by many factors than anything else we know to exist or have ever existed.

We must work together, decide together, succeed and fail together, not exploit each other. The exploitation economy is the same as a large criminal one, violence, fear and secrecy are used to maintain power. The power hungry want nothing more than to be above others, even if overall humanity has to have less for that to happen.

[xaoslegend]

We want to think that we are independent , that we are responsible for our own successes and failures (that we are in control) in reality society is the invisible hand that determines all these things, and culture in arcane manners decides to whom the luxuries will be provided.

This is a great support for us making decisions together, and rightly so, as independant parts people are just clever apes with thin claws and an unbalanced weak frame of thin skin and a destiny of madness.

[xaoslegend]

The idea of the self made person, the person who has produced everything on their own and owe society nothing it nice and romantic but a myth regardless. Even the artist like picasso can only be so well rewarded because around them society has learned to be greatly productive over thousands of years, it allows him to be a celebrity instead of an oddity, it allows for the great medical care the abundance of wonderful food, the conveniences of transportation and cheap construction ect.

[xaoslegend]

No one makes their money on their own, most of the productivity gained by mankind has been gained through technologies that are no longer copyrighted like the combustion engine or the coal electric plant or mass production or irrigation. A man of 1000 years ago regardless of being the best man of his time could not produce or cause to be produced more than most poor men today can simply through taking advantage of what all of humanity has now in advancements.

[xaoslegend]

also the characterization that "the people who worked really hard" are the ones with the cash is a horrible characterization of reality. Some do certianly, but most people who work very hard in the USA are poor, and will remain poor, and many are middle class with little to leave to their families. It is only a few lucky or rare ones, and those with generational support of wealth and connections that really pass anything down, and they generally cheat the death taxes anyway through trusts.

[xaoslegend]

Taking money from all who make money and using it to fund the military is the same as taking money from one and giving it to another, and for similar purposes. The military protects us and allows us to live in peace with lawful business allowed to be done (theoretically, international corporate bribing is well known and widespread) public education, food stamps, homeless housing assistance help keep us all safe from crime and create new skilled workers for business to be done.

[xaoslegend]

If taxing all of a person's assets when they die is robbery (when voted in by the majority, who will have the same done to them) then any single cent taxed is robbery. If a person cannot use their money without it being taxed then that's the same as taxing it at the point of income.

Why don't we collectively let all our children have an better more supported life instead of the lottery of who's vagina you came out of? let talent reveal itself with equal opportunity. and not waste it.

[xaoslegend]

... either, which is why I'd love to see a 100% death tax and strong regulation of any loopholes that allow legacy gifts, trust fund work abounds, and other ways of getting around it. No one should live off of their parent's or grandparent's accomplishments, they should earn their own rewards in life. Also, such a tax would allow for a huge reduction in other taxes collected, which would help the ambitious progress more quickly in their pursuits.

[xaoslegend]

is a joke btw) Another is that a common feature of the least regulated and flatest tax systems is that wealth becomes more and more concentrated to the point that that private wealth threatens the very society that helped facilitate its accruement, especially its democratic institutions, especially when money is speech and justice. Also because a stratified society tends to be very uneducated and volatile. I don't want people to live off what they didnt earn either.

[xaoslegend]

voting determine this) because they want to support these programs but dont want to reward the least moral in society by allowing them to opt out while the most moral are punished for opting the most in to pay. There are alot of economic reasons to tax progressively. One is that beyond decent cost of living money becomes investment capital which allows a person very often to make money from their money with very little actual labor being done. (and the capital gains tax is a joke btw)

[xaoslegend]

semantic/convoluted unless you want to be a fundamentalist about it and let the poor starve to death or rely solely on charity(which can be pretty arbitrary and cover more of the self-promoting poor vs the more ashamed/humble/deppressed. People can always donate to the government if they want to or similar service charity organizations. Most of the time people seem to prefer voting that everyone contribute what is "fair" (once again representatives and voting determine this)

[xaoslegend]

sales tax and income tax can be pretty similar, of course what you're really trying to say is you want a flat tax. The problem with that is that if subsidies are given to families and individuals with certian needs(usually needing more money from being so poor) then you take flat tax money and make it progressive through welfare programs.(Which once again are reasonable if we say so based on voting/public support for) so it really gets to be semantic/convoluted

[xaoslegend]

You're just saying you wouldn't decide to spend your money this way, well i'm sorry when we vote we decide together, and sometimes an individual's will is not the same as the will of the many, the same as in a family. If you don't want to pay taxes remove yourself from our economy. (shack in the woods, move to another country, don't work ect)

freedom is actually often defined by how much money one has unfortunately, especially when money is speech or legal representation.

[xaoslegend]

ok so that's a yes on your arguement is about any taxes not just this one.

being taxed is not a restraint in and of itself and therefore a loss of freedom in and of itself. That's like saying if your family decides together to buy a car and not buy other things that that is then a loss of freedom for them, it's the opposite actually. They used their freedom of choice to choose to spend their money on this instead of that. the same way a republic does.

[xaoslegend]

If all you mean by "freedom" is that individuals are able to do whatever they feel like in the economy despite the interpreted will of our representatives (IE to have no taxes no regulation no publically funded anything) than you are only arguing for the freedom of a few not for the many, which isn't an argument for freedom its an argument for domination, exploitation, organized immorality (now called crime), and 3rd world social organization. Warlord capitalism would be a good name.

[xaoslegend]

If a corporation has a monopoly on something you cannot efficiently get for yourself that diminishes your freedom because you have no choices, and have to pay them a premium beyond the value of their product because of their economic high ground. If you have no police or military to protect you from the interference of the aggressive and amoral of the world and your community you lose more freedom than having a gun would recoup for you.

[xaoslegend]

On the freedom meme.. lets actually be rational about this and not simplify it to the point of nonsense. First of all we are supposed to be represented by our leaders, and voting for the ones who champion our interests expresses our will as voters. Our will is an expression of FREEDOM. by voting we have the collective freedom to accomplish things that we can only do together. Freedom is not defined by how much money is left in your pocket after taxes.

[xaoslegend]

I'm sorry to hear you are not covered btw. I really do hope you become covered before you need health care.

On constitutionality if you're taking the stance that all taxation is illegal, well sure, but then you should be arguing that somewhere else and against all spending and taxing other than war spending and the post office instead of just against medicare and a public health insurance option.

[xaoslegend]

The representatives we have are generally voted in by majority. (some exceptions exist with the president obviously) In some states there are levels of direct democracy via ballot measures. Anyhow it's a semantic argument that is pretty useless.

The law is also something that democracy (or the republic) creates and modifies. Were talking about how things should be, not how they are, this is a policy discussion not a bar exam essay.

[xaoslegend]

lol the "I'm covered so screw you." arguement

Freedom is not a light switch. There are degrees and qualities to it. Having a public healthcare option included among your options increases freedom, it doesn't decrease it. Also if a democracy votes for universal government only health-care that would also be an expression of them using the freedom of the vote democratically to make a choice. These freedom not freedom less freedom arguments are nonsensical. make a real point.

[teadiaries]

chuteleach, if you are paying for insurance through a private health care provider, you are STILL paying for their bad habits. You think when you're paying your monthly premium that that money goes toward "your" health care. NO! It goes toward everyone's health care that has insurance through that company.

[teadiaries]

chuteleach, private insurance companies will NOT go out of business! Who told you that? They make too much profit to go out of business. Even if their profit was cut in half, they'd still be some of the richest corporations in America. I wouldn't worry about them. And pharmaceutical companies make pills for a penny and sell them to you for 1000-5000x markup. They're not going anywhere either.

[xaoslegend]

If the argument is that you think the economy should be less efficient and less humane so that the hierarchies in our society will not be diminished at all, basically that its better that we all have less so some can have relatively more, I don't think that's a very strong argument. Also the free market does not exist in the US, it might be interesting if it did, but it doesn't, so those that are wealthy are often wealthy to their degree not just by effort but by government political favoritism.

[xaoslegend]

a lot of what you seem to be responding to is government run health care, it's true they're proposing to subsidize the health care of people who can't afford the public option (probably 20% of the population) The game has already been tilted in favor of the wealthy so much in the last 30 years that the gap between the rich and poor has multiplied by many times, also the ultra rich (top 400 earners avg 250 million a year) pay less as a percent of their income in taxes than a family making 50k

[xaoslegend]

In a democracy we make decisions to collect taxes for projects and institutions that we decide are for the greater good. Like transportation infrastructure and the military, it's just no efficient of preferable to have these things be the responsibility of individuals. We pay twice as much for the health care we do get as countries with some universal form of health care, and we get worse results. We can live in the lala land for cheaper than the dark one we do now, easy decision to me.

[SgtTravisBickle]

The US isn't a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic.

[xaoslegend]

Which is a type of democracy. Or a government with democratic mechanisms. However you want to say it. Youre right that it's not a direct democracy. Thanks for making the clarification, I'm sure anyone with half a brain understands at least the general idea.

[xaoslegend]

American healthcare sucks, even for people who get it. Either you're not getting it, you're paying 2x more than any other industrialized country does for it(with the worst outcomes), and/or you're being scammed into all sort of procedures and drugs you don't need, because the profit motive and health-care do not mix without extreme regulation. The only reason any politician or media personality says our is the "best in the world" is to prevent change, or keep from seeming unpatriotic.

[xaoslegend]

Those people who eat MCdonalds are your soldiers and construction workers, they're your truck drivers and warehouse stockers farm hands and garbage men, without them our country would fall apart in days, you're such an elitist prick. If you ran the economy you'd have so much rope your neck would snap in record time.

[xaoslegend]

Your argument is so basic, and reiterative of the laziest formulas constantly murmured on FOX news its not even funny. You don't need to make 1000x someone else to have incentive, and most people without healthcare do work, they still can't afford it. Countries with universal healthcare are not communistic, most of them hardly even socialistic, making sure everyone is healthy and prepared to work helps the economy, the same as education and roads do.

[xaoslegend]

a lot of people have worked hard for other people's wealth and their own poverty as well. If you work full time you should have healthcare coverage period. If an employer is not paying enough for that and the oligopoly of health insurers denies them coverage that's wage slavery that is exploitative and just nonsense. Most of us contribute to institutions larger than ourselves to make the world work, some of us just steal from others and claim personal "hard work" justifies it.

[twinturbine]

But I don't think anyone is advocating either. In, Germany, for ex., it is illegal for the state not to provide housing if one cannot afford it. Healthcare as well. Yet their society & free market economy does exceptionally well

There is enough wealth for basic services to provide a dignified (not grand) living for all if managed efficiently, its seems culture (as you said), fear & existing power structures are what puts people off

BTW, UK is a free market, made a mistake in my last comment

[twinturbine]

Well, communism is total state control over the economy as a means to destroy the class system.The class system was the enemy, once a classless society was achieved through indoctrination & total state dominion then the state would wither way & all would work for the common good

Didn't work out

Socialism is state ownership in the commanding heights of the economy to benefit society. Inefficient when not reconciled with rational expectations, efficient when managed correctly (Singapore vs UK)

[twinturbine]

Thanks for the explanation, I can't postulate what might happen in the US, but that hasn't happened here, Australia, Japan or HK. Except the insurance co's. might have lost some business. Good! Miserable vultures. Still they survive...

Sorry, but I take exception to your comment on the poor. I've lived in the US and the poor I saw do not have the money to "eat MacDonalds", rather they are trapped in unspeakable poverty relying on begging & soup kitchens. It would do you well to remember that.

[twinturbine]

Regarding choice. The UK tax rate:

(tax free allowance £6,X00)

10% £0-£2,230

22% £2,231-£34,600

40% Over £34,600

You pay for the NHS with taxes comparable to the US, but can have private insurance if you wish though you still pay the same tax

Australia is the same

Healthcare here is a right. In fact you have MORE CHOICE (gov or private), business pay less, it's more efficient as a % of GDP, the poor are covered & with less sick the economy is more competitive

[twinturbine]

It is more than a shame, it is a modern form of serfdom that the poor receive a lifetime of debt for treatment & those with limited healthcare incur huge debt

What of their freedom as you Americans say to 'LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'? Those specifically are denied to those poor who fall ill

I take pride in paying tax, it is my duty to pay for the upkeep of my community

In the countries mentioned there was NEVER a wait to see your doctor, except HK, due to limited healthcare

[auamoti]

taxation = extortion. you should give up on the State altogether, it'll always be like this. funny vid/call though, i enjoyed it.

[twinturbine]

Before making wild statements about the failure of universal healthcare you should experience it first

I've experience uni. healthcare in Australia, the UK, Hong Kong & Japan all of which are excellent (esp. Aust). Its not without problems but everyone is covered

I have also been to the US where there is no healthcare coverage (ex. medicare/aid, vet benefits) leading many to be trapped in debt for years, this seems to contradict the US desire for freedom

I find it puzzling. Please explain

[TheSNEEXE]

i think the answer to your questions are fairly simple. This is not a good thing and someone is using this reform bill to either line their pockets or control a certain group of people. Just my opinion.

[videomusicshowcase]

I respect your opinion.

You and 18% of America are dissatisfied.

But the solution isn't having 18% higher cancer, like Canada.

We can actually target higher quality and lower prices, not universal health care that's failed again and again worldwide throughout history.

[odnovits]

Well thanks for respecting my opinion as I do yours. Up until about 3 years ago when I lost a good job I had good health Ins now I have none and my story is becoming very common and thiers a good chance it could happen to you and I think 18% is just the tip of the ice berg and its going to get worse if somthing drastic isnt done

[wafflethug]

Do you think that 18% disparity in cancer survivors between the US and Canada will be 0% if Canada switched to private health care?

Wouldn't having specialized cancer research hospitals in your country be more of a factor in cancer treatment? Sloan Kettering Memorial hospital is one of the best cancer hospitals in the world. It is not for profit, and receives a large chunk of their research funding from philanthropic and fund raising donations. IMO, your cause and effect relationshp is wrg