Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1401637 Posts in 67933 Topics- by 61476 Members - Latest Member: meeloboer

July 03, 2022, 03:43:07 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGeneralSo the Health Care bill passed.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]
Print
Author Topic: So the Health Care bill passed.  (Read 26879 times)
moi
Level 10
*****


DILF SANTA


View Profile WWW
« Reply #260 on: March 30, 2010, 08:48:30 AM »

Quote
regarding government and corporations and which are more evil, both are obviously evil.

jesus what.
No, they aren't evil. Atleast, not "obviously" evil, otherwise, noone would ever want to have a government. Cause, y'know, it's obviously evil.
Noone wants a governments, only the governments want people to have a government.
The first government was a bunch of desert marauders that kept their people as slaves after having raped them instead of just killing them , because they figured out it would be cool.
Then they became lords, and it all evolved to kingdoms, etc...
Logged

subsystems   subsystems   subsystems
shig
Guest
« Reply #261 on: March 30, 2010, 08:53:53 AM »

Good lord I lold
Logged
Mipe
Level 10
*****


Migrating to imagination.


View Profile
« Reply #262 on: March 30, 2010, 08:54:19 AM »

So a tribal structure is not a government form?
Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #263 on: March 30, 2010, 09:02:08 AM »

there are different kinds of tribal structures, some would qualify as government, some wouldn't.

mipey is correct about the invasions thing; you don't need a standing army to fight an invasion, when an invasion happens the army would be formed in response to it. some of the early american leaders were against having a standing army, since they felt that perpetually maintaining something like that made it much easier to use it for purposes it wasn't intended for.

@shig - there are also professions known as private detectives, and bounty hunters.
Logged

pen
Level 8
***


babyman


View Profile WWW
« Reply #264 on: March 30, 2010, 09:13:14 AM »

@shig - there are also professions known as private detectives, and bounty hunters.
Since we're talking about a government-less society there are quite a few problems:
1: Only the ones wealthy enough to afford putting out bounties or hire private detectives to dole out justice.
2: Criminals could move from town to town, stealing and killing without anyone being able to see a pattern, should the towns be sufficiently far away.
3: Without strict regulations as to what bounty hunters could and could not do (as opposed to a government-funded police force) you just introduce more problems.

These are just examples from the top of my head.

Also: A standing army is more than just a direct defensive force, it's also a deterrent.

OH GOD WHY AM I POSTING IN THIS SHITTY THREAD!?
Logged

I AM FREE!
shig
Guest
« Reply #265 on: March 30, 2010, 09:33:06 AM »

AAUGH NO. Having bounty hunters as one of the cornerstones of law enforcement and security is just a terrible idea.

 Also, don't expect those to be nearly as effective as a proper police force, since this system you envisioned seems to be completely engineered against any sort of cooperation between law enforcement units. Not to mention your detectives and bounty hunters go after criminals MUCH AFTER they have commited a crime. The preventive effects of a proper police force would be almost completely lost for small crimes.

 Also, what about the database that the police force uses nowadays? Its importance is incalculable. How do you expect to keep it up to date and make proper use of it this way?

Maybe if you organize a team of managers and expe- Nevermind. Can't have corporations.

You seem to be against the very concepts of management and leadership. Some things are just going to be much less productive without those.

Quote
OH GOD WHY AM I POSTING IN THIS SHITTY THREAD!?

One day we'll find out Paul Eres is actually just a really clever troll.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2010, 09:37:08 AM by shig » Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #266 on: March 30, 2010, 09:41:03 AM »

@pen - those are fair points, but nobody is saying a voluntaryism would be a utopia. regarding the issue of moving town to town, informal criminal internet databases will still exist. it's not like it'd be in the wild west where if you escaped to the next state nobody would be able to track your history.

@shig - see above about the utopia issue and database issue. i'm not against management or leadership per se, only monopolization; i.e. when it gets to the point where some people have so much power or money that everyone else is powerless in comparison. it's perfectly possible to have management and leadership on a smaller scale. for instance, i manage and lead my game's production. i'd be against someone trying to manage and lead the production of all games, rather than individual games. another way to put it is that i believe in organization but feel it should be bottom-up rather than top-down.
Logged

shig
Guest
« Reply #267 on: March 30, 2010, 10:14:15 AM »

The problem is not that it won't be an utopia, but that it would be less effective than what we have now.  

Ugh, I'm over. I'm not posting in this thread anymore. I hate the feeling of trying to convey something that's obvious to you but the listener just doesn't agree/understand.
Logged
pen
Level 8
***


babyman


View Profile WWW
« Reply #268 on: March 30, 2010, 11:08:06 AM »

I'm not saying it has be an utopia, I'm saying your suggestions are shitty.
'those are fair points' doesn't even begin to describe it. I just shot down your entire argument regarding law enforcement.

I think I'll follow shig's example, goodbye thread  Wizard
Logged

I AM FREE!
JParkWildPockets
Level 0
**


View Profile
« Reply #269 on: March 30, 2010, 01:24:08 PM »

Well, since I missed the beginning of this thread, I'm bring it back on topic.  Just to explain my background on things of this nature, I'm a social liberal and conservative in terms of business/economics.  Thus, I can't really label myself as a pure Democrat or Republican.

Our current (prior?) healthcare system was a complete mess and needed an overhaul and I was glad when I heard a new healthcare bill was going to be seriously discussed, and even forced through.  I'm pretty conservative in this area -- I believe government should stay out of it for the most part.  But this is good government intervention in an area that obviously needed some help.  Normally, I would be disgusted at the Democrats for pushing anything through the way they did, but in this situation they could have come up with a very Republican bill and the GOP would have said no.  It needed to be done.  That said, I don't think this bill is going to fix anything, nor do I have faith that it will be fixed in the ensuing amendments process.  The Republicans have too much to gain from this bill flopping and failing.  These next couple months and years are going to be bipartisan politics at its worst.

First of all, I'm not falling for the Republican message that we've taken our first step towards socialism.  I understand that taxing the rich to fund this system is "redistribution of wealth," but didn't these very people go through 8 years of tax cuts?  I know it doesn't really work this way, but I just can't help but think that they're just paying the taxes that they used to pay before Bush took office.  Anyways, America was never a true capitalist nation in the place, there's no reason to scream bloody murder now.

Now for what I don't like about the bill.

The incentives to businesses to insure your employees are nonexistent at best.  Small businesses get some tax credit... and that's pretty much it.  My dad owns his own business and was looking at it and came to the conclusion that it didn't affect him.  My dad's business has maybe 5 employees and is a prime example of a small startup business.  Even with the tax credits, it costs him too much to provide his employees with full insurance.  Big businesses (50 employees or more) are charged $3,000 per head (correct me if I'm wrong here) after the first 30 employees if they don't provide insurance.  So for a company with 50 people, they only have to pay fees for the last 20 people.  What business would provide health insurance in this case?  And the major companies already provide insurance, so that's not an issue.  Basically, the companies that matter -- the small and mid-major businesses -- still have no reason to economically justify providing their employees with insurance.

There's the obvious issue where everyone is forced to pay for insurance.  Starting from 2016, you have to pay a fee for not being covered.  Wait, so if you can't afford health insurance, you have to pay a fee?  Some people have higher priorities: paying for rent, food, gas, utilities, having a little money left over to have fun every now and then.  Insurance is just that... insurance.  Not everyone needs it or wants it.  I'm sure a lot of people my age are thinking "maybe later."  But now, we're paying either way, so we might as well just insure ourselves instead of throwing money at the government's feet.

I could go on, but don't want to make an excessively boring/long post and those were two issues that struck me the hardest since the very people that this bill was supposedly created for are essentially passed over.

What matters, though, is in the end I'd still rather live here than anywhere else in the world  Beer!
Logged
gunmaggot
Guest
« Reply #270 on: March 30, 2010, 01:51:36 PM »

Paul Eres
Logged
Chris Whitman
Sepia Toned
Level 10
*****


A master of karate and friendship for everyone.


View Profile
« Reply #271 on: March 31, 2010, 08:33:48 AM »

The Denialism Blog has a good rundown from one of their writers (an MD/PhD) on the new Healthcare bill, what it does right and what it does wrong. It addresses a few of the points made here in brief and raises a lot of issues no one has mentioned.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2010/03/healthcare_reform.php
Logged

Formerly "I Like Cake."
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #272 on: March 31, 2010, 08:52:38 AM »

I'm not saying it has be an utopia, I'm saying your suggestions are shitty.
'those are fair points' doesn't even begin to describe it. I just shot down your entire argument regarding law enforcement.

i presented no argument regarding law enforcement, so that'd be kind of impossible. without law, there'd be no 'law enforcement' -- because there'd be no law, you see. bounty hunters and private detectives, without law, are not law enforcement. they're more like mechanisms to deal with people who prey on others with force.

so i totally agree that private groups would be worse at enforcing laws, it's just that that's not what their purpose would be. their purpose wouldn't be to 'prevent crime', because there'd be no crime (because nothing would be against the law). instead, it'd be to maintain a civil society through the removal of people who kill or steal (or kidnap etc.); not because killing or stealing are crimes, but because civil society can't exist when they're left to do what they want.
Logged

Valter
Level 10
*****


kekekekeke


View Profile
« Reply #273 on: March 31, 2010, 09:14:45 AM »

I appreciate the article, Chris.

I am still upset by the lack of provisions on organ sale. Is there a vanishingly small chance that someone will try to steal your kidney? Sure, I guess, although it would be highly doubtful. On the other hand, it would (if Iran is any indication) almost immediately address the over 80,000 patients on the kidney transplant waiting list, saving a significant amount of lives and money in the progress.

America has a tendency to make rulings based entirely on morality in controversial issues rather than on any degree of fact.
Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #274 on: March 31, 2010, 09:17:46 AM »

it wouldn't save all 80,000 of those, though -- it'd save only those who were able to afford to buy someone's kidney. the ones who can't would be out of luck.
Logged

Valter
Level 10
*****


kekekekeke


View Profile
« Reply #275 on: March 31, 2010, 09:21:18 AM »

it wouldn't save all 80,000 of those, though -- it'd save only those who were able to afford to buy someone's kidney. the ones who can't would be out of luck.
Organ sale means that you are allowed to sell an extra organ (such as one of your kidneys) to the government for a cash sum. The organs then go to doctors. It's not done on a per-patient basis. This is what brought the waiting list in Iran down to zero people.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough when I brought it up, I can see where the confusion can arise from.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 11:48:58 AM by Valter » Logged
michaelplzno
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #276 on: May 26, 2022, 04:48:28 AM »

the tone of everyone's writing here is very much this video:



Logged

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic