Basejumper.com - archive

Just curious, not that I buy into that bs. With all the talk lately about the different insurance companies dropping coverage for base jumping, does anyone know if base jumping will be covered under any of the obamacare plans? I don't have insurance for multiple reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that anything that I see myself getting hurt doing is generally excluded from insurance anyways.

There is no central "Obamacare" plan.

"Obamacare" is the label for a system that forces people to purchase a specific product (healthcare financing) from a group of corporations who've lobbied the government to force people to pay them.

What is covered is basically up to those corporations, and will vary from one plan to another. I doubt that "Obamacare" will change much about the specifics of the various financing plans. It will simply increase the profit margins of the corporations that sell them, because choosing not to do business with them will become illegal.

I did not know that. The portrayed image over here of recent events related to the american health care system and federal budget funding shows the GOP as a bunch of conservatives who resist change for no reason thus threatening the global economy and has Obama pictured as a man delivering a social safety net to the more unfortunate people in the U.S. society.

Makes me want to read more about the PPACA.

There are plans under the Washington Health Benefit Exchange that will cover you if injured, but if you broke the law expect to be dropped after coverage or have increased premiums. Most plans listed that I saw have no exclusions as to coverage, but not all plans are "affordable" under the affordable care act.

Great summary.

Couldn't have summed it it up better and so succinctly my self.

Wow. Just wow.

That's what your media is saying? What happened to journalistic integrity and reporting (a) facts, and (b) differing viewpoints?

Obamacare penalizes people who can't purchase healthcare financing. The vast majority of people who can't afford to purchase financing are young and relatively poor. It's people like the original poster who will suffer the most. These people are young, healthy and have relatively low incomes, and this lower income group will be forced to purchase a product they don't actually want, in order to subsidize the profits of (already very wealthy and profitable) healthcare financing corporations.

In the real world, I suspect that many of these people will still not purchase this overpriced product, and will therefore become criminals simply because they don't want to give their (limited) money to the big corporations who've designed (and lobbied for) this new system.

If your desire is really to help these people, passing a law that will turn most of them into criminals because they can't afford to comply seems like a really strange way to do that.

^ hey Tom, how many states are not expanding medicaid concurrently with the obamacare? Colorado for instance will be subsidizing the insurance for the poor by expanding medicaid. I know NC is not is not expanding medicaid. But poor people are exempt from fines at least for the time being (which are ~90$ if I am not mistaken). Are there states that are not expanding medicaid and also not exempting the poor from fines???

This isn't really relevant to BASE jumping, but you seemed to have a good grasp on the national situation whereas I am only aware of my state's and a few other states situation.

Well, they are not saying that explicitly. What I wrote is more like the internal representation my mind builds up after reading various news papers and listening to the radio e.g., there might be an article about the conflict between Obama and the Speaker of the House, and after that I might be a columnist sharing his/her leftist views, and as the liberals are representing a politic which is considered pretty far (though not extreme) on the right side of the political spectrum here, the GOP are easy targets for such columnists. The Speaker of the House is a republican, so while the columnist might not explicitly state that he's causing the problem, that's the conclusion people (well, I) make. Take into account that our health care system doesn't work like yours. Hospitals are owned by the state, most health care is paid for by taxes (though this is slowly changing towards a more market-oriented model). People here assume that's the model that Obama wants to implement in the US, which apparently isn't the case.

The fines are federal, so it's up to Congress to decide who gets exempted. It's also up to Congress to change it in the future.

There are plenty of states that are not expanding medicaid.

My guess is that sooner or later we'll see Congress exempting people in states that expand medicaid, but not in states that don't, as a tool to bludgeon state governments into submission on the issue.

The distinctions between political parties in the USA is far more vague than in most countries with parliamentary systems.

In the USA there are really only 2 viable parties, which between them control all branches of government at virtually all levels.

This means that the gap between John Boehner and Barack Obama (for example) may not be nearly so large as the gap beween John Boehner and members of his own party.

For example, one of my favorite members of the United States Senate was recently labelled a "wacko bird" by a leading member of his own (republican) party because he had the temerity to assert that the President did not have the right to order the execution of American citizens without a trial, and because he further demanded that Barack Obama come out and say that he wouldn't do such a thing (which our Nobel Peace Prize winning President still refuses to do).

The press here (and I suspect there) widely labels this man as a "fringe right wing extremist" for pushing novel viewpoints--like his "extreme right wing" position that the government ought not simply kill it's own citizens without a trial.

It's things like this that have led me to view press reports with a considerable amount of skepticism.

... till Independent and Libertarian candidates
are able to participate in presidential debates
WE the people are all fucked ...

Don't believe everything you read on the internet that may or may not have been written by those who believe they have decoded some secret government ploy to adhere to corporate greed. Read the health care reform act and form a logical opinion based on facts. "Obamacare" is a pretty neat bill.

Really?

You've read all 2,700+ pages?

Then please answer the OP's question: among all the other things that Obamacare forces people to buy, do and be, and all the items it forces the insurance companies to include in all policies no matter the age, health or gender of the forced purchaser of the policy, does it or does it not mandate that injuries incurred during extreme sports activities will be covered?


44

Yes. All of it, several sections Several times. And it's under 900 pages without citations and title page. Here's a link. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf there are also many accurate bipartisan summaries written for each section.

And yes, most plans are backed by either networks like PPOs or HMOs which will each have different terms of coverage guidelines.

Robin, you're a smart guy, and you have always shared your often intelligent but obviously politically swayed opinions online. I like that and enjoy your posts. Ask yourself, how well do you understand this bill, and how much of your information has came from 2nd and 3rd hand "conservative" media? Would you like to debate this like internet know-it-alls? We will both sound like idiots, the difference being my information will be supported.

To the OP: the plan I just signed up for is the exact same plan backed by Aetna that I had before with my current employer. My employer now won't contribute to my premiums. However, both my kids are now covered for only $70usd more per month (they weren't covered before since I am not a full time employee). This company has never refused to cover my somewhat minor injuries because of accidents I've incurred while BASE jumping or skiing, including a broken spinous process on my C4 vertebra that I broke while skiing. I honestly can't say if it covers specific BASE accidents, but I do know there is nothing in my plan that specifically excludes it. I hope that helps. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but be informed. The affordable care act will affect those who are a liability of becoming a financial burden if injured or become sick and have chosen not to be proactive, not those who are already proactive.

Exactly my take on the situation! I have been trying to focus on this part optimistically rather than look for the doom and gloom in the situation.

So, its an annoying tax hike for you if you chose not to (for rational reasons) buy a medical insurance policy. Its enforcing you to be rational if you chose not to buy medical insurance irrationally. So what we are still way below what most countries get taxed

Its only money, after all And if the money is actually that big of an issue for your survival, then there are policies in place to protect you from an undue burden. Otherwise you are making the common mistake of the "everyday libertarian" thinking her pretax income is HERS (not to be confused with an actual Libertarian whose view/political theory is much more coherent/refined/complex).

MY PRE TAX INCOME, SUCH AS IT IS, IS MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE! ANY THING TAKEN FROM THAT, WITH OR WITH OUT MY CONCENT, IS A BURDEN TO ME. THE ONLY QUESTIN IS WHAT IF ANY THING I GET BACK IN RETURN WHICH IN THIS COUNTRY IS NOT MUCH. THE ETA, EFFICENCY, OF OUR GOVERMENT IS SHIT. DON'T EVEN TRY TO PRETEND THAT IT IS NOT STOLEN FROM ME.

END OF RANT.

LEE

In short, we can pay to treat the sick, or we can pay to help prevent their illness. This act is the latter which over time will reduce taxes spent on welfare and preventable/treatable illness.

I love to hear people complain about government on various social media outlets while pretending they either have all the answers or ranting like just because they were lucky enough to have a mom that was fucked in the USA they are somehow granted these special laws by their non-existent god.

That is all, I too am done with this silly thread.

There is nothing to debate: What I understand and you apparently do not is that the abomination called Obamacare is in fact, structure and intent the most pervasive police-state surveillance system of mind, body, finances and posessions ever designed anywhere by totalitarians otherwise known as "community organizers."

You are apparently enthralled by Obamacare's perceived "benefits." There are benefits to being a prisoner or a slave, too. About that there is no debate, either -- just personal preference.

You apparently prefer to be a prisoner and slave. I definitely do not.


44

P.S. BTW, thanks for answering the OP's question.

+ $1M

The looters have arrived. They need to take my money to pay for those who are incapable of taking care of them selves. I have no choice in this. I can not opt out. Nonparticipation will be punishable as a crime.

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452011876/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381775877&sr=1-1&keywords=atlas+shrugged+part+3

And if you're too lazy to read... and don't worry part three is in production.

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Part-One-Blu-ray/dp/B005N4DMMG/ref=sr_1_4?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1381775728&sr=1-4&keywords=atlas+shrugged+part+3

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-II-Strike-Blu-ray/dp/B00AIBZGJ6/ref=sr_1_6?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1381775728&sr=1-6&keywords=atlas+shrugged+part+3

When does the strike begin?

Lee

You realize you sound insane, right? I mean, surely you've heard, I'm guessing, of like, Slavery... or like uh... Stalin, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or Hirohito or... like... uh...

you know what...

nevermind

SMACK that straw man, silly boy. I wasn't talking about totalitarian body counts. I was talking about pervasive surveillance.

So please, look up the word pervasive before you pop off... and the word surveillance... and you will see that neither word is related to pogroms, mass homicide or genocide.

And then try to grok this in its fullness:

None of the institutions or individuals you listed can hold a candle to the Leper Messiah when it comes to the pervasiveness and ubiquitousness of Obamacare surveillance and control over every aspect of our existence. Period. Full stop. And that, silly boy, is pretty much the definition of slavery, isn't it?

And to get back to the OP's original question: Of course BASE injuries will eventually be excluded from Obamacare, as will every other physically risky activity (you know, like eating jelly doughnuts). The collectivist "logic" is that risk takers -- especially physical risk takers -- are selfish a-holes who drive up the cost of everyone's health care by breaking themselves doing frivolous and unnecessary things. Therefore, the collective must prohibit us from risking our lives and health by BASE jumping, riding motorcycles, riding horses, eating jelly doughnuts, fries and greasy foods, etc etc etc ad nauseam.

That is in fact what will happen - and probably not to far down the Obominationcare road, either. Better sell your gear now while you can still get a few $$$ for it. Trust me, you'll need it to help pay for your new improved surveillance-state-of-the-art "health care."


44

You do not sound any saner.

I'll give you this, silly boy: You tell the truth in your signature line.

As I was saying...

Maybe one of these days the idiots will realize that the carrot is not real!

Oh, the carrot is "real" It's just not a real carrot; it's really just a bigger stick we're being told is a carrot - and the omoebas who believe it make idiots look smart.


44

The true mark of a wise man is he calls anyone with a different point of view an idiot.

+1

I have also read much of it. The margins are huge and it's not that difficult of a read.

Surely those that have strong opinions about it in either way must have done a lot of research on it and are likely intelligent people. So, I'm sure you'll find reading it to be a breeze. If you haven't read it yet, please do so. This conversation would be much more constructive.

All I'll say.

Are you suggesting that you actually need to know what you are talking about before forming an opinion? Doesn't sound very American to me

Fox news tells me all I need to know in between episodes of Simpsons. I thought this was the American way

The true mark of a wise man is that he knows he could be wrong.

The problem with Obamacare is that it envisions one specific way of living as "best" and then uses force (or the threat of force) to coerce people to live that way. It's a classic case of someone envisioning their lifestyle as the only acceptable one, and forcing it onto everyone else.

Forcing other people to live their lives in the same way that you've decided is best for you is not just nonsensical--it's wrong.

Maybe you believe that the world would be a better place if everyone purchased a car, or some healthcare financing, or if there were no homosexual individuals.

You have every right to think those things. But you do not have a right to force your views on everyone else. And that's true whether your name is Robin Heid or Barack Obama or John Boehner.


What is the moral justification for forcing me to purchase this product even if I don't want to buy it? And threatening me with tax penalties if I don't? And jail time if I don't pay the tax penalty?

Is one man's morality really so confident in it's superiority that it has a right to force all others to follow it?

Tom,

you seem to know a lot about this, let me ask you, do you really think it will be enforced (these penalties I mean). Last I heard there were going to be major stumbling blocks in actually enforcing anything. Much like there are major stumbling blocks in enforcing anything that people lie, cheat, steal regarding government aid (the "free rider problem" in political phil).

Yes, I do.

Worse, I think they will be "enforced" arbitrarily, by humans. Which means that some people will not have to comply, but others will end up with swat teams serving warrants (google around and you can find cases of swat teams being used to serve warrants for uncut grass--seriously). Which means the penalties will just be used as another way for people in power to abuse people who aren't in power.

I feel abused having to see this thread in the "General BASE" section. Wanna use your power to either move it or keep it on a BASE-related topic?

... said the toasted illiterate to the wise man who called those who support the American Coercion Act omoebas, not idiots. AFAIK, idiots do not force people at the point of a government gun to "help" other people -- which in the private sector is known as armed robbery. That is the province of omeobas.

Again, mark my words, BASE jumpers; if you check the American Coercion Act carefully -- and that includes the 11 million words of regulations spawned by the actual law -- you will see that it's already upping costs for certain behaviors that are considered to be unhealthy and therefore more expensive for the collective to cover. If things move forward the way the cheering omoebas want, you will soon not be able to get health insurance at any price to cover activities the collective deems to be "too risky" for the collective to accept. Behavior will be controlled based on "controlling health care costs" and "making health care accessible to everyone."

The bed and resources you soak up recovering from that wall strike could easily -- easily -- serve several disadvantaged children who need that bed because their parents can only work part-time now because the Coercion Act turns basic economics upside down and forces companies to lay off workers or restrict their hours in order to survive the diktats of the fascist in the White House.

That is what the Coercion Act is at its heart, BTW: pure, unadulterated fascism. Read Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto if you don't believe me. It describes Obama and the American Coercion Act to a T. Here is one excerpt:

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people.

Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State.

The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.


44

[Edit to fix a cut-and-paste error]

(This is not to say whether I believe in this answer or not...)
But the answer to your question that is typically given is, you ARE going to buy the services anyway, whether you think you are or not. John Doe says, I don't need/want health insurance, because I'm [insert any reason here].

But the reality (so the argument goes) is that John Doe is 99% guaranteed to use the healthcare resources of the emergency department, or the hospital bed, or the ICU at some point in his life. And he's already "insured" in a sense, that he will get a basic level of emergency care plus sometimes additional charity care (which is really charity absorbed by you and the rest of us.. you don't have a choice about contributing to that charity one way or another).

The default "health care plan" of being uninsured is inefficient, extremely expensive (for society), and has terrible outcomes. But it costs John Doe nothing if he ignores his bills (unless the bill collectors get called in).

So the complementary question to yours is, how is it morally justifiable, for John Doe to consume services he never pays for?

In sum, the argument isn't "you need to live this lifestyle because we think it's the best." Instead its, "you have, or will have, purchased this service at some point in your life. That is a certainty, and we are making sure you pay your debts."

The answer might be, let hospitals turn away dying people without health insurance. They made their choice and, tough luck for them, they can take it to the grave. That is the real libertarian answer. But even Ron Paul is on record saying that is not acceptable in our society.

I am not saying that any of the above is what I subscribe to. You simply asked what the moral justification that was used, was. I am offering this as an answer to your question. Anyone can feel free to debate it but I am probably not going to defend it or agree with you.... I just wanted to stop by and throw fuel on the fire

But here's another perspective for thought. Lots of people only look at it as if they are being forced to purchase something, because that's literally what a tiny, tiny, part of the law is about. But what is the difference, really, between the government taking my tax money, and spending it on whatever government spending it wants... to the benefit of society, me, and CEOs of giant government contractors... or the government NOT taking a certain portion of my taxes out of my hands directly, on the condition that I spend it on something specific that benefits me and benefits society, and the CEOs of giant healthcare organizations.

It's like a "choose your own adventure" using your own tax dollars. That's why, in some "fungible" sense if you will, this is really nothing other than a tax hike (Thank you, John Roberts). And for most of us, it's a tax hike that is largely offset by other tax credits. i.e. fairly neutral to my final balance sheet at the end of the year. It may not be that way for everyone. But it's really just a portion of your taxes which you get some control in deciding exactly how/where it's spent.

Be angry about a tax hike if you want, by all means. But it's wasted energy to obsess on "being forced to buy something." The government already forces you to buy $3.5 trillion dollars worth of way-more-useless shit every year!


That is the essence of taxation, is it not?

This hits the nail on the head.

The problem isn't that the government wants everyone to be insured...I get that. The problem is that now the government has a financial incentive to force you into a certain style of living. Anything that can be tied to increased health care costs is now a burden of the collective, and needs to be restricted.

Back in the day the decision to smoke cigarettes was a personal one and only two parties were involved - a private company selling goods for a fee and a private citizen making his own adult decision. Now the government attempts to manipulate this relationship via taxes, warning labels, advertising restrictions, and even using seized tobacco profits to fund anti-smoking campaigns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...Settlement_Agreement

That's right. All those Truth anti-smoking commercials? Paid for by big tobacco via the government.

What was the next target? Unhealthy food of course. Back in the day you and your food-provider-of-choice were the only ones involved in your diet choices. Now the mayor of New York would like to be in charge of NYC's soda consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...oft_drink_size_limit

The defense for these actions is that poor individual decision-making is a burden to the collective via health care costs.

You know what else is a burden to the collective via health care costs? BASE jumping. And probably a lot of other things you enjoy too.

The problem isn't the specific language of the law, or the tax penalty, or that the insurance companies stand to profit. The problem is the entire IDEOLOGY behind it. The idea that the collective has a stake in the decision-making of an individual. This leads the collective to coerce the individual into an agreed upon set of best practices.

The irony is that BASE jumping at it's core should reject this very notion. As crazy as some of Robinheid's posts may sound, I think he's one of the few posters staying consistent in his ideals here. He applies the same set of principles to everything, whether it be BASE, health care, gun control, etc.

Oh, The United States of America...

Your country is in terrible shape and its your own fault. You are mostly great people, just like the Greek people here in Europe, you just really suck at running a country. I mean honestly, you tried for a couple hundred years, gave it your best shot, but it didn't really work out. It's totally ok to just give up at this point. I'm sure Her Majesty can sort you lot out in no time.

:)

Kerkko
BASE1184

 
My health insurance story.

I'd had health insurance through this company, State Farm very reputable, for 25 years. My mother signed me up with this policy when I was like 15. I'd been carrying that fucking card in my wallet for more then half my life. And it's not like it was inexpensive, It was a little over $4,000 a year. So I figure I'm good.

So I get hurt. Doing yard work of all the fucking things in the world. Pause for laughter. Know what it paid? Nothing. Not a fucking thing. I take that back, they payed $1.50 towards the ambulance ride. That was it. Every thing else was on me. Get's better. I'll skip all the fucked up details about the billing. In short I was informed that I was being billed at a high rate because I was white and had insurance. If I had not had any insurance at all my bills would have been like 20% lower. So not only did this health insurance that I had been paying into for 25 years not pay off but I was actually penalized for having it. And it's not like I was a bad customer, I'm healthey as a horse, never had a claim of any kind. All I can say is thank god it was not worse. It got better on it's own no thanks to any of those fuckers. And I was able to pay all of the inflated bills off my self, fuck you state farm.

So you can see why I'm so excited that I am now forced by law to sign back up for health care so that it will now cost me more out of pocket not to mention the cost of the policy it self. No bull shit. This is 100% true. So before you get all excited about how great universal health care would be maybe be you should reexamine what exactly "health insurance" is. It is not what you would think from the name. And it can be a huge fucking scam that can bleed you dry.

There's only about a thousand things that could be done to fix the health care system in this country. But no one wants to talk about any of them. This law does nothing to fix any of the systems that are in place. This law has nothing to do with health care. It changes nothing and in the end will only make the real problems worse.

And in case you're wondering, I am now uninsured.

Lee

The bible says that Obamacare is a sin.

What was the reason SF gave to when they declined to cover the costs?

Just curious...and it's a good lesson for the rest of us.

Not likely, as the only thing Her Majesty Queen Michelle Antoinette does is try to force school children to eat the food She wants them to eat -- most of which ends up in the trash. Pretty soon, the kids will be paying fines for disobeying Her Majesty's diktat to eat their broccoli. In the meantime, Her Majesty's much ballyhooed vegetable garden rots on the White House South lawn.


44

Basically that health insurance that I'd been paying for for years was not actually health insurance. It turns out it was a major medical policy. Basically they would not pay a dime till I required surgery or got cancer. It's the sort of thing that should be a supplementary insurance to some existing coverage. But it had been sold to my mother as a primary policy by the sales man. She's not bright. But for years I'd carried this card in my wallet thinking I was covered. This is why I say that "health insurance" isn't necessarily what you think it is. It doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. And in my case could not be relied upon for any thing. It was a harsh lessen in burrocrocy and lawyers and contracts. And the reality of what the health care system really is. It was disillusioning.

Lee

It's not. No one has a right to "consume" something "he never pays for." That's called theft. And we have laws against it already.

The fact that someone may commit a wrong at some point in the future is _not_ a justification for forcing other people (not even the same person) into a system they find repugnant, by force.




Yes, it is. And the question is still valid.

But this isn't a case of taxation. It's a case of private parties being forced to purchase products from other private parties, whether they want to or not.

Much respect, but you should've read the policy. Moreover, to my knowledge, State Farm doesn't provide health insurance and never has.

State Farm Health Insurance
P.O. Box 339403
Greeley, CO 80633-9403
Phone: (866) 855-1212
The NPPN Health Network
Agent: Dan Sweeney
Policy # H32401114343

And for the record I was 15 years old. I was never shown the policy. I was not consolted in any way. My mother simply handed me the card and told me that I had health insurance.

Lee

Ah, my apologies Lee. Although State Farm does 'sell' health insurance, it's not their own; it just markets other underwriters' policies through its network of agents:

http://www.statefarm.com/insurance/health/sfforinf.asp

They (insurance companies) are all the greatest scam on earth.

Tom: the individual mandate was a poison pill provision added at the behest of the insurers - it either wouldn't pass constitutional muster and would sink the ACA (leaving the insurers & providers with the highly profitable status quo), or if ruled constitutional, as it was, the individual mandate would bring in a shitload of new healthy paying customers. It was a win-win for the insurers at the expense of all of us. It wouldn't have been a part of the ACA but for lackey congress members working at the behest of their well-funded lobbies, most of which lean heavily to the right of the linear political spectrum. Regardless, some blame falls on both sides of the aisle.

But fuck the chit-chat, let's go huck some shit.

Forced to buy insurance?
Why do people still want a democracy?
Hopefully soon people will understand just what a democracy is and opt to return to the original form of government in America.

Well that systems seems to have already failed then.


Wait a minute. Aren't you guys required to carry third party car insurance? Where is the uproar over that. License, registration and insurance please.

Could also be compared to me being forced to pay local taxes in order for the schools to operate, even though I never intend on having children. Why the fuck should I pay for someone elses education?
Don't give a shit either way, just providing counter points

Nope.

If you want to drive your car on public roads, you are required to have liabilty insurance in most states.

But you are not required to own a car (at least until the ObamaCar act passes, requiring everyone to purchase one). Nor, if you do own a vehicle, are you required to drive it on public roads.

You can easily make the decision not to purchase vehicle insurance, either by not owning a vehicle or by not driving it on public roads (there are actually a fairly large number of those vehicles in rural Idaho).

But there is no such possibility with the healthcare financing mandate. Merely by being resident within the USA, you are forced to purchase this product.

You shouldn't.

And neither should parents who choose to send their children to private school (and pay for it up front).

You're doing that thing, again, where you sound insane.

Sounds like a pretty slim argument to me. How many Americans do you estimate have either of those choices available to them? (Of course you could say every single one but we both know that that is neither practical nor logical).

I think this is a vast oversimplification. You may, technically be able to not own a car, but largely, many people are forced to. It's sort of the flip side of that old addage about the law prohibiting both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges.

Look, cooercion sucks, but it's pie in the sky to argue that something is wrong simply because it's coercive. Coercion exists and always will. We are social beings. We make rules and force each other to do things all the time. It's how we are. It's like saying people shouldn't be mean... BUT THEY ARE. That's it.

So argue all you want about the merits of some particular system of coercion, but to argue that there is some system of non-coercion that we could use as an alternative is just silly. The world is a violent place and we're a part of it. Government, corporations, neighbors, your own damn mom is always "telling you what to do."

For the record, I'm not a fan of Obamacare. I don't know a shit ton about it, but from what I've learned I think it's a pretty flawed system. I do think universal healthcare should happen, though. The fact of the matter is that all of us get sick eventually, largely by chance, and none of us say "well, I haven't been paying in so I'll just lay here and die rather than use medical services available to me." And the reality of the current system simply makes it completely impossible for certain people to pay in at all.

Having lived through some pretty bad injuries there's one thing I've learned; Health is paramount. If we're going to provide people with anything, it should be that.

Sure, I'd rather spend that $2,000 every year
on a trip to Europe or a new BASE canopy but
living in a society requires some sacrifices...

Police, Fire, 911, and public schools are paid
for by property taxes. We do not have kids,
we are not going to have kids, but education
is important, it provides the children of poor
people at least the opportunity to achieve a
better life. It worked out well for me.

You think it's more important than food?

Why are we trying to force people to purchase healthcare financing, when some of them can't afford food? Wouldn't we be better to provide food for everyone first?

+1. Its called socialism and society wise its not too bad here in Europe, better the more north you go. That is why we have less differences between the poor and the rich and why our social classes interact more with each other.

But it is very demonized by the US media and not welcomed in that capitalist society. Those socialists are like communists maybe even fascists. Friends with Stalin and Lenin and Hitler..... Or maybe it is the other way around.......

Please tell me you did not participate in the Nutella class action lawsuit. I hope you can at least figure out how to read the nutrition facts.
There is only so much BS you can take before the BS levee breaks. If you are content with your Gov. perhaps you are insane.

How much time have you spent in the USA to make this comparison?


And how on earth is forcing people to buy a product from a private, for profit corporation "Socialism"?

Except that in Europe the people pay taxes and the government then uses some of that tax money to run hospitals.

In US however the government use the threat of violence to force people to buy health insurance from private for profit corporations that might be usable in privately owned profit making hospitals.

I have to agree with that. buying from private is definetely not the way. It is contradictory.

Anyways, fun debate but its more for you guys from the other side of the Atlantic, just giving a socialist point of view.

Spain is so fucking boss! I just want to buy the "El Puro Bar" in Riglos and stay there forever.. c'mon lotto!!

Socialism is working in Spain?

No offense to you personally, but in American finance we regularly refer to the PIIGS (read: pigs).

Portugal
Ireland
Italy
Greece
Spain

Why are these countries lumped together? Because their systems are all so broken they nearly (and still have the potential too) toppled the whole Eurozone economy.

Again, this isn't a personal attack. Just letting you know the American perception of socialism's success.

This comment is going to seem slightly out of character for me because I am not a fan of socialism, communism or basic fascism. And I may be misinformed this is just my perception from the far side of the ocean.

It seems that there are at least a few nations that seem to have found a fairly good balance which includes a fairly high degree of socialism. I'm referring to some of the Scandinavian countries. Here's what I see and why I think it might be working for them.

They pay outrageously high taxes.

They actually receive value in return for their taxes.

Their economies are more balanced, they do not live as far beyond their means as we do.

They are well educated.

They have low unemployment.

They are not large nations.

The are more stable. Less population growth, a more stable demographic curve.


I'll contrast that with the US... screw it. Just read the same thing over again and reverse every statement.

Maybe this is just my perception. I've been there but I haven't lived there. Can any one tell me how far off I am. How bad is your deficit? How many trillion dollars or kroner or what ever is your debt? How long does it typically take for your population to double? How does your unemployment compare, keep in mind our numbers only reflect how many have recently lost there jobs recently not how many are unemployed. How many children actually bother to finish their primary education? How many go on to a secondary?

As I see it the US is too big, too unruly, too unstable, too corrupt, and too stupid for socialism to ever work here. As I see it the real problem here is that people are trying to implement socialism when all of the above problems are prominent. If we were running in the black. No deficit. Zero debt. An surplus in the budget. I'd be like, yah, a social security program might be reasonable. Socialism is not a solution for all of those woes. It's a luxury that a society can indulge only if it can find a way to afford it. You'd have to solves all the evils of the world before you could impose that one. And honestly I think that if we ever reached that point we wouldn't have the desire for it. At that point what do you need with it?

Lee

Well you better start spelling PIIGS with an "A".

Just pointing out, Tom, that for anyone who is going to die of something else, before they die of starvation, then certainly health care is more important than food. And this includes a lot more things than just your run-of-the-mill emergencies. You can live a long time without any (or sufficient) food. Any hospital is chock full of people like this.

Also there are already a bunch of programs to distribute food to the needy, they work pretty well for folks who engage in them correctly. Not as true, for health care.

Folks who are poor enough to have food insecurity, are either going to be effectively exempt from the health care mandate, or they are going to have the full cost offset by subsidies. So while "food or healthcare" question is a true dilemma facing many people presently, it is probably not going to be exacerbated by Obamacare (or the ACA either, if you were on Jimmy Kimmel's show). So that part of your argument is a false dilemma, I think.

It would be great if we could actually live in a laissez-faire capitalist utopia, with no taxes, no forced consumption, no coersion. But... can you realistically argue that any society without some kind of taxes or social contract is healthy and functional? Maybe I am a flaming communist, but I believe in things like public funding for education, and certain limited entitlements, and that taxes are a necessary evil. Since I don't see any difference between taxes and a health care mandate, to me, the ACA is no more immoral than any other tax law.

In other words, I hear all the conservative counterarguments, but they don't impress me. If the republicans want to win against obamacare, they need to change the minds of independents and centrists, with a different argument other than "it's a moral outrage" (many already believe that, but manifestly, not enough of them do to repeal the law)

in other words.... we are bored with the same old arguments... give us something new, like demonstrate its failure, or offer a better plan, or something original!

Haha! Well played.

And RiggerLee...that post rocked. Very well said and an excellent observation.

I think you're right in that socialism can work when everyone works in concert. Americans...well that ain't our style. It's much more of an "every man for himself" culture. There are pros and cons to both approaches.

I suspect time is the only one that can demonstrate the failure of a large government social program.

It's already done that for us with Medicare. Which, interestingly enough, is also related to healthcare.

"Almost from its inception, the HI trust fund has faced a projected shortfall. The insolvency date
has been postponed a number of times, primarily due to legislative changes that have had the
effect of restraining growth in program spending. The 2013 Medicare Trustees report projects
that, under intermediate assumptions, the HI trust fund will become insolvent in 2026, two years
later than estimated in the prior year’s report."

http://www.fas.org/...crs/misc/RS20946.pdf

Report on the solvency of the program. It is a beast that has never been adequately fed, largely because it's not really possible.

I think Maggie Thatcher said it best:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Malnutrition is the largest health problem in the world today.

The difference is HUGE.

Taxes are paid to the PUBLIC treasury. The ACA requires payments be made to PRIVATE (for profit) corporations.

Do you really see no difference there?

You want a better plan. I've said before that there are only about a thousand things that could be done to fix the problems with the health care system in our country. Here's a few thoughts. This is just what I see.

It seems to me that the whole system of health care is inflated. All the cost, all the charges, all the payments. It's all tied togather in a big loop with the providers, the insurance companies, and the patents and a pack of bllod thirsty lawyers circling it like sharks.

What exactly is it that makes it so expensive any way? The training, the equipment, the drugs... That I can understand. I was talking to a jumper one night, a doctor, and he was telling me about his insurance cost. He's a GP not a surgant or a cancer doctor. All he does is tell you to stick out your toung and say awww. Then he sends you to what ever specialist you to see. He's hardly more then a recepionest for the specialest. He told me what his insurance cost was. I wish I could remember the exact number, this was years ago, but it was a healthy or should I say unhealthy percentage of his grouse income. And he doesn't even cut on any one. Malpractice/liability insurance was a killer for him. It's like a Cessna. Do you realize what a new 182 cost and what percentage of that goes towards liability insurance?

So it's like this. it's a game of catch. Insurance passes the ball to you. You pass to the hospital, hospital/doctor passes it back to the insurance company. And you're all surrounded by lawyers cheering the game on. Only it's not a ball it's money. A lot of money. Only it's not real. It's like monopoly money. The prices just keep going up and it's all so inflated but it doesn't matter because it's a closed loop. And it's all being fueled by all those premiums and the huge investment base that is the reality of an insurance company. And that's what they really are. Huge power blocks that can invest in any thing, like say... phamisudical companies. It's all very insestues. In theory it can all work until some one drops the ball. For example if you don't have health care or they decide not to pay. Now all of a sudden the money is real. It's not pretend any more.

So their idea is to force every one to join the game. That doesn't fix the fundamental problem of the inflation it just makes the ponzy scheme bigger. The real problem is to make the system it self more affordable. Not to try to boost the profits of the game.

So here's a radical thought What if you didn't need insurance any more. What if you could break this cycle of the game or at least reduice the size of the ball. So where is the best place to start nipping it. How about ending the need for liability insurance for the health care providers. It's all about Tort law which is an evil weight bearing down on our whole country. So how do you get rid of it? How do you keep the law from being used like a big stick to threaten people while still preserving some since of justice. How do you get rid of frivoles and threatening law suits. I'll give you a hint, it's in our wavers. If you sue the drop zone you agree to pay all of it's legal fees. I say that you should be able to bring suit for any thing but... if you lose you should be on the hook for all the expenses resulting from your law suit. If you've got a case you have the right to sue. But suddenly there is a down side to a frivoles or threatening law suit. And just to make it more fun I say that the cost should be split down the same lines as any winning would have been. If the law firm would have seen 60% that's what they owe. If the plaintiff hoped to gain 40% then they owe that in cash. Suddenly people might think twice about letting there name be used in a get rich quick scheme by some ambulance chaser. This doesn't stop any ligetiment action but it makes fishing for a quick settlement very dangerous.

Now one of the legs of that triangle is broken. Now a hospital has much less need of insurance and the insurance companies them selves actually have a motivation to go the court rather then to just sign off on a settlement and write it off in there books. It's about stopping the flow of this fake money. It's about deflating this whole system.

So that's a place to start but what else can be done to drive the price back down to a more realistic number. I'm not big on government interference but in the short term once the tort thing is fixed in order to create a more competitive market and drive the cost down to a realistic level... What if the government got into the business. Let's say they opened the US insurance company at 10% under the current rate. In return for the new laws protecting against fraudulent law suits the medical community agreed to honor their insurance. It would be a temporary action to bring the market down and create a compotation lowering the free market prices by a few percent every year over a fixed time table. By the end the free market should be able to out bid the government program which in time should be able to go away naturally.

This is just a thought but no one wants to talk about the real problems. I'd be all behind a plan that actually tried to fix any of this but that's not what I see in this act. I don't see one fundamental thing improving from this.

Lee

Here's some food for thought...

Once upon a time, there was a country of some 20 million people. About a quarter of these people lived in an area that heavily depended on labour intensive crop farming. They had a particular solution to their challenge that was economically successful. However, many other people, outside their region, felt that their approach was wrong, and didn't fit comfortably with religious and moral beliefs, so they created laws which would force great changes on the first group, including inflicting much higher labour costs on their farms. The larger group had developed a more industrialised economy, so the proposed changes did not greatly disadvantage them.

The first group were outraged, and sought to separate from the nation, to form their own distinct national identity, where they would not be subject to the repugnant and repressive laws imposed from the outside on their landed gentry.

They went to war, but the numbers were heavily stacked against them. History would overwelmingly state that the Confrederates were morally wrong in trying to defend slavery, and the Republican President was right to impose his will.

Who would have thought that the libertine abolishonists who sought to impose their will so ruthlessly on the Confederacy would spawn people who believe that it's wrong for the government to impose obigations on the people for the greater good? Opposition to agrarian slavery has been replaced by support for the McJob economy, the wages of which don't provide for basic healthcare.

Disclaimer: I don't know much about Obamacare, I simply find the philosophical arguments entertaining, and seek to explore alternate positions. It could be worse. I was going to use a scenario based on the compulsory and brutal acquisition of native lands as a cornerstone of nationbuilding.

Just for the record, I'm from Texas.

And also I might point out that that little conflict you refer to was over states rights vs federal authority. Slavery was an example of that conflict but it was not the root issue. I might also point out that there was never a law passed repealing slavery in the southern states by the tyrannical northern government until long after the conflict had broken out and only then when they had a Punic victory to base it on and that it was only done to try to lend some form of moral creadance to there efforts to subjugate the goverments of the southern states in an effort to prevent the European nations from coming to the aid of the south. Please note that the procromation did not free any of the slaves in the northern states. Yes, there were slave states in the "union" and the slaves in those states were not freed until much later when a amendment was added to the constitution.

And if you look at the poll data, red and blue states I think you will see that we still oppose the oppressive ideas forced on us by northern new England liberal democrats.

Lee

My point was less about slavery, and more about the fact that the party imposing federal will on the Confederate states was the same one that now opposes the imposition of federal will... IIRC, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican from Illinois. And the Confederate states are mostly (if not all) red these days! Irony.

Your points about the cost structure of US healthcare are very well made. You could add to that the model of the US pharmaceutical industry, which is also far more aligned to the needs (profits) of the corporations than the consumer.

Universal healthcare (UHC) that works around the world rarely covers any and all treatments, and tends to be selective, to keep the lid on costs. Private healthcare cover may be required for treatments not covered by the universal system. For example, you get burned in a fire, skin grafts and so on are covered, but you might get limited physiotherapy or psychology services to help with rehab or dealing with trauma unless you have private cover for this. The private cover might not include certain causes or treatment types. I don't know of any UHC that excludes treatment on the basis of cause - e.g. BASE jumping, whether legal or illegal. But then again, I don't know of any that operate on the US model of managed care either.

Democracy is the imposition of the will of the many upon the few, compared to most forms of totalitarianism, which impose the will of the few upon the many. In the US, democracy is about the imposition of the will of the representatives of the many, as guided by their corporate sponsors...and the problems this causes leads many of the many to reject the alleged will of the many.

I once had a conversation with a Canadian named Rob Stanly. As I understand it Canada has health insurance for it's citizans when they travel. If I remember correctly what he told me was that they would no longer pay for the treatment of skydiving injuries when traveling out of country. As I recall he attributed that change to his brothers injuries in a fairly major skydiving accident.

Honestly I was only half lessening at the time and it was a while back. What is the story on Canadian health care? They have government health care right? Do they have a means to pay for health care when they travel? And is it now excluded if they are injured in a skydiving accident?

A Canadian rigger here was injured at eloy. Broken arm. As I recall they just gave her some pain killers. Gave her a sling and kicked her out of the hospital. Not even a cast.

And by the way the Democratic party of today isn't really the same as the democrats of 1860 and the republican party is not really the same as the party of the 1800's. It's not the fundamental values of the people that have changed it the political parties.

Lee
Lee

So are we talking about the world here, or the U.S.? Even yes food insecurity is a problem here. But so is health care insecurity. And it's not a stretch to say a spiraling health care problem is worth addressing in that context. You are never going to "fix" malnutrition 100%, so you will never get to anything else if you insist on making it perfect first. Like so many other problems, you do what you can and balance it with other efforts.

Nope. I really see no substantial diffence. I pay money to someone for some communally-shared service. I supposedly get a service in return. My bottom line is not really affected. And, the ACA imposes significant regulation on those private corporations, in consideration of their special role.

Raytheon? Boeing? Lockheed? PRIVATE corporations that are raking in the dough on your tax dollars. By you making payments to the public treasury... not different.

The only difference is... the middleman is removed from the flow of cash (i.e. the government). The conservatives should actually like that aspect of it.

I am neither for or against it per se, but do agree
the program only obfuscates the current problems
with our delivery system for medical/health care.
Basically an expensive band-aid because none of
the mis-spelled problems Lee pointed out will be
substantially changed.

Little history - during WWII the US Government
was competing with the private sector for labor
so they passed a moratorium on wages, as in
no more raises to attract new workers instead
of new soldiers since the supply was finite.

So business offered health care instead as a
form of compensation and for some fucking
reason that weird marriage has continued...

If we were to divorce the two then a lot of
economic inefficiencies could be eliminated
but some problems would still persist.

I could dazzle a few of you and irk many
others with pages of discussion about how
economic terms Moral Hazard, Asymmetric
Information, Defensive Medicine, and the
Principal Agent problem apply here but to
save keystrokes I will make it simpler:

It takes 20 minutes to knock up a chick.
It takes 276 days for a baby to gestate.
It takes 25 years to make a new doctor.

When DEMAND grows faster than SUPPLY
you will have a SHORTAGE, which always
causes prices to rise if possible, meaning
if you have the last rig available to rent
one hour before Bridge Day are you gonna
put it on sale? If you had the last bag of
weed for sale right before spring break
would you put it on sale?

Doctors, Hospitals, and RX companies are
all in business to maximize their profits.
The way we as a country pay for their
products only adds an extra company
to the equation, so just extra costs.

What we as individual pay for personally
we are more price sensitive, just listen
to people bitch about gas going up five
cents. But what other people pay for
we are happy to waste, think of the
way people in hotels are so much less
worried about water & electricity use!

There is a huge difference between offering Universal Health Care to your citizens at home and providing them with Travel Insurance, especially if you are planning to travel to the Inflated States. I know of some European countries that offer such Care but am fairly positive that Canada and most other Commonwealth Countries do not.
If, however, you get your ass back home then all treatment becomes free. Ie. If you break a leg in Buffalo and suck it up, cross the border and limp into a hospital the treatment will be free. Or in the case of your friend Rob's recent accident, once he could make it home from overseas all the follow up care would become free.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree then.

The potential for corruption when public money's are flowing into private coffers is insane--it dwarfs the (relatively little) corruption we have in our public sector.

Using government force to line the pockets of big corporations is not Socialism or Capitalism--it's Corporatism. And it's one of the most corrupt and oppressive systems ever created.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."
~Benito Mussolini

And the proof is right in front of us...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasci

House of Representatives


Senate


US Supreme Court


Coins


AOC

The healthcare industry sure does have some weird economics. This article is a quick read that talks about some of the adverse forces that make this shit so expensive for everybody. Even though that's not really the point of the article.

(And this article which is unfortunately behind a paywall, is another down-and-dirty hit piece against the healthcare industry which made me cry about going into medicine)

RiggerLee makes some great points too. But we'd be lucky if lawsuits were the only reason this shit is so expensive. It's way uglier than that.

Just look at medicare fraud. Any fraud is evil, and its possible in either system. If you want to quantify the economic cost of fraud in the system... I don't know how you are going to support with data, the idea that corruption is worse, when you remove the government as a financial middleman and make them a watchdog instead. But I'll definitely look at data with you.

I think your last post makes a good argument for a single-payer system, though.

Either that or a capitalist system. Which is definitely not what we have in the USA.

Too many people confuse capitalism with corporatism. They are actually antithetical.

What about the other portion of the law?

Did you read the other portion... critical to implementation, but that is not within that PDF?

...I'll take that as a no.

This thread sure takes a lot of wind out of my sail.

ACA/Obamacare...

Working, Like, A, Charm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4mV3R7vu4

We all know how much we can trust the media.

I have wondered for some time now if people outside of the U.S. have gotten over their Obama worshipping phase and realized that he's a fraud.

It was obvious to nearly everyone in the U.S. who researches candidates records before voting.

Many of us also realized long before Obama's first election that a black politician is every bit as capable of being corrupt as a white politician. The political left seems very slow to catch on in that regard, though. Must be because of their racist tendencies.

I don't know if any of you still have interest or are following but it looks like the official enrolment numbers have just come out...

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2013-11-13-Health%20Overhaul-Problems/id-acde94ed861c435e987b7cd74fc33a18

The number of new policies through the great grand web site of salvation is at best unimpressive. Where as the numbers, in the millions, of policies that have been canceled as a direct result of the law are very impressive. I wish I still had it but there was an article about sticker shock of people reapplying for new policies after they were dropped do to this law. The price hikes were substantial. There were some people who were now eligible for government subsidies to help pay for some of those cost but for the rest the price change was brutal. But just to be clear about this I have not heard of ANY cases of the cost going down. Or at least I have not seen it reported. They talk about how some ones payments went from several hundred dollars down to $50.00 WITH THE NEW GOVERMENT SUBSUDIES THAT THEY WERE NOW GIVEN. So let me get this straight. Before they were able to pay for there own health care and support them selves. The price almost doubled, say from $600 to $1200, but with the new SUBSUDIES there payments out of pocket now run $50.00. Is it just me or is that fucked up? Before they were self-sufficient and could pay there own way. Now they can not afford to take care of them selves with out government aid and $1,150.00 a month is being funneled out of government funds in to the insurance company, double what they were talking in before. And who's paying for all that? And what about the poor shmuck that doesn't qualify and can no longer afford health care at all? Some body explain to me why this is called the affordable care act? And how exactly does this make the situation any better?

Lee

http://www.nbcnews.com/...hock-some-8C11545202

http://www.thenewamerican.com/...ammered-by-obamacare

http://www.fool.com/...ere-costs-could.aspx

http://articles.latimes.com/...icker-shock-20131027

http://www.ktbs.com/...-holders-in-arklatex

http://www.washingtontimes.com/...shock-foll/?page=all


I guess my thought is "duh".

Big, for-profit corporations lobby for a new law requiring everyone to buy their product. The law passes. They raise their rates and start padding their profits, reaping the benefits of their lobbying efforts.

Yep. Duh.

So I would like to provide another point of view here that I think might be relevant.

I live in Sweden. I was born here, my parents were born here, their parents were born here, &c. During the end of the 19th century and up until recently, we had a pretty strong working class rights movement. The government consisted of mainly social democrats. During the great war, we tried to be neutral which resulted in famine and a generally shitty situation for everyone. During the second world war, we were pragmatic to say the least. This was a great thing for us, and a lot of it can be attributed to our minister of foreign affairs at the time, Christian Günther.

After the second world war, especially in the 50's, we saw a great improvement in quality of life. During the late 60's and early to mid 70's there was a very strong working class identity being formed on a national basis. Our minister of education at the time, and later on minister of state, Olof Palme could be seen marching side by side with the north vietnamese ambassador Nhuyen Tho Chyan in february 1968. Pretty left-wing. During this time, social democracy ruled. The middle way. We also had communists, traditional liberals (think Rousseau) and conservationists represented in our proportional-ruled government, but the people in charge were generally social democrats.

When I was born in the eighties, health care was run by the government. If you were sick or injured, the state would provide for you. And the state consisted of your peers. Your interests were generally represented. You'd still have to pay a symbolic amount, but if you couldn't there were regulatory mechanisms in place to deal with that because the people needing care the most generally didn't have the means to provide for themselves.

Fast forward to today. If you're sick, you can still get care. However, if you want good care, you have to pay for it and look elsewhere. This is especially true for geriatric care, where the state have outsourced a lot of the business to private actors. If you go with state-provided geriatric care today, the state pays a private company a fixed amount per patient. This means that the company hired by the state has every incentive to provide the cheapest possible care for the patient in order to maximize shareholder value. So we have state funded health care funding private companies in some areas, and it's not working out for the people who need care. This is also the way it works for some educational institutions.

This is kinda converging with the US system, but the U.S. is converging from the other side of the political spectrum. Ish. I dunno. It's just that I get the feeling that what we have today in terms of business-involved government is bad. Any form of government should be by the people, for the people.

The more I think about it, the more I like Noam Chomsky.

The problem is that this sort of corporatist "compromise" is much worse than either a free market system of a socialist system.

In this case political "compromise" is just recipe for disaster.

I'm very libertarian in my political views and would much prefer a free market system to a socialist one, but either (including a fully socialized healthcare system) would be better than the "compromise" system we've got here (and it sounds similar there) now.

So, I'm a great admirer of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and his point of view, and I see a lot of his thoughts in what's popularly called libertarianism in the U.S. reflected in his teachings. There's a few major differences, like the right to own property, but apart from that (if I can make such a bold statement), they're similar.

Capitalism in it's pure form is a system that creates classism. You have a ruling class that feeds on the less fortunate. I think this post on Reddit (so shoot me) explains why capitalism is not a very egalitarian system pretty well: http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/1ppu09/anarchocapitalism_as_described_by_a_mutualists/cd5735d?context=2

I witnessed a speech by Aleida Guevara once. She said, "we don't know if socialism is the best way, but we know it's better than the alternative" or words to that extent.

I think socialism is flawed. I find myself adhering to anarcho-socialism/mutualistic beliefs more and more. I do recognize the inequalities created by a capitalistic system. What I see around me to a much greater extent is the world coming to a pure capitalistic system. I think this is bad. I also think it's something we cannot stop, because the people in power benefit from capitalism. I don't think empowering the working class is the solution, but I do recognize that the problem lies in empowering a minority of people, in a capitalistic system this is the people who have the means.

Obamacare gives a lot of power to the companies involved. I think this is bad, I don't see how it benefits the general public. It doesn't affect me directly, however it does affect me on an ideological basis. I don't see how anyone could support such a system, really.

I don't think an egalitarian outcome is either necessary or desirable. People are different, and the differences between them should be celebrated, not quashed. If everyone was the same, the world would be really boring. Diversity of circumstances is a valuable kind of diversity in society.

I suspect we're likely to just disagree on that, though.

Seriously?

And you are happy using in-equality to ensure diversity?
Now I'm not saying everyone should be the same, everyone does however deserve the same rights and opportunities.

e·gal·i·tar·i·an·ism [ih-gal-i-tair-ee-uh-niz-uhm]
noun
1.
belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, social, or economic life.

Yes.

In order to guarantee an equal outcome, people must be treated differently. If everyone is treated the same, then the outcomes will always be different because different people have different interests, different motivations, and different ideas.

The only way to insure that everyone ends up with the same thing--be it cars, houses, parachutes or healthcare, is to treat them differently, giving more of things to people who want them less (and hence have worked toward those things less).

For example,imagine that we're talking about how many skydives each person will make this year. A skydive is a service provided by a third party (a drop zone owner), in much the same way that healthcare is a service provided by a third party (a doctor).

Would we want to make sure that everyone made the same number of skydives every year? What about people who didn't want to skydive at all? Should we restrict some people (who desire to work, so they have more money to make more skydives) so that we can give free skydives to other people (who never wanted to skydive in the first place)?

That's the same idea as requiring the original poster to purchase a healthcare financing plan he doesn't want, just to make sure he gets an "equal outcome" to other people. We're substituting some societal set of values for his own, individual values and judgment.

How does that make any sense at all?

Equality of outcome requires unequal treatment of individuals. Unequal treatment of individuals is wrong.

In the US we celebrate the equality of opportunity, but we recognize that any system which strives for equality of outcome is a flawed one.

Edit: Ha! Tom beat me to it with a little more detail.

My bad. I assumed that egalitarianism would naturally mean the rights to equal opportunity, not the enforcement of equal outcomes.

While I understand your point I think skydiving is a poor analogy. Everyone will need healthcare whether they think they do or not.

So I saw another article. Sorry don't have it here. If I understand it correctly the problems with the web site are even deeper. A Lot of attention has been payed to the difficulty that people were having signing up. This implied that a significant section that would deal behind the scenes with the subsidy payment had not even been written yet? Am I understanding that correctly? And that it was very behind with all the effort being diverted to the front half of the web site.

If I'm understanding this right I wonder what it will mean come the new year. What will happen with all these subsidies? Will the insurance company get paid. Will people be out of pocket? How was all of this a good idea again?

Lee

That isn't terribly relevant to this discussion.

We're not talking about healthcare here. We're talking about healthcare financing purchased from private, for-profit corporations.

It's as if you decided everyone needed a house, so you required them to not only purchase a house, but also to take out a 110% mortgage on it. Buying a house in cash would become illegal, as would not buying a house.

It really makes no sense.

True.

Oh you mean like the way I can't do shit in this country due to my lack of credit rating. Oh, well how do I get a credit rating? Well it's easy, just use our credit. But I can pay cash. But your bank balance doesn't count, so you need our credit.
May not be illegal to use cash but they are definitely coaching you guys into debt. Yes I know that was off topic.

Yes. Exactly like that.

Another big place where it happens is higher education. everyone "needs" a college degree so much that we'll jack the price through the roof--but don't worry because there are loans available, so you can spend most of your life paying off a mountain of debt you accumulated when you were 20 years old. And if you ever finish paying that off, don't worry--a nice big mortgage on a house will keep you in debt afterward.

Hah. I just had that conversation with somebody last week. Except that I was pointing out all the jobs you need a big expensive school degree to be considered for. Doesn't particularly matter whether your degree is relevant or not, just that you have one. In many cases the emphasis is on have a degree more so than having a relevant degree which begs the question "Why even have one in the first place then"?

To make your brain huge which is directly proportional to your appendage.

No.

They need to take your money to pay PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) member companies who gave up $80B in drug discounts to get onerous ACA provisions (like the clause allowing Americans to import their American made drugs from countries where those drugs carry lower list prices) stricken and then spent $100M on an advertising campaign coordinated with the White House to gain millions of new customers, many with tax dollar stuffed wallets.

For those who weren't paying attention PhRMA was the same organization which brought us the Medicare Part D $100B/year tax funnel into their coffers when the Republicans had the presidency, Senate, and House. They liked Republican Representative Billy Tauzin's help passing that law so much they gave him a seven figure job ($11.6M in 2010) as their president and CEO.

A few poor people who weren't poor enough for Medicaid, old people not elderly enough for Medicare, etc. will get some help but that's not what this law was about.

Although "corporatism" ends in "ism" just like "capitalism" and "socialism" it is very different from both.

So another issue I have with this new mandated health insurance (that I haven't seen anyone else talk about) is: How many different health insurance plans do I really need? I already am mandated by my state to carry personal injury protection on my car insurance in case I am injured in a car accident. Then I am required to pay for workmans compensation at work in case I am injured at work. Then most people are coerced (by the potential threat of a lawsuit) into buying third party liability insurance in case I am injured on their property, or they on mine. How many different policies do we need?

As long as attorneys continue to be compensated for throwing frivolous lawsuits at the wall and hoping one sticks, we will require increasing amounts of insurance to protect ourselves against said lawsuits.

Even if they aren't suing you, they are suing someone, and that drives up costs to the end consumer (e.g. healthcare).