Fuck you Obama

[BraveUlysses]

Please don't drag this into car and public transportation chatte kthx

[The Dark Side of Will]

Moving on, we can afford it as a country if we make the changes that we need to, but the political will is not there for much of the country, mostly due to the fuck you, got mine attitude that is so prevalent here.

Some of the changes made by ACA are positive steps in this direction but most of them do not go far enough to solve rising costs. My view is that we should extend medicare to all citizens.

The idea that everyone needs coverage instead of care is what's driving rising costs. If we focused on making care affordable, the need to coverage would go away.

As far as the national debt goes, try reading this:

Does the $16 Trillion Debt Matter? A Remedial Lesson in Public Finance Economics for the GOP (the CATO institute is a conservative think tank)

What's your point with that? It says that governments should focus on reducing spending to reduce unfunded liabilities, rather than focusing on reducing the deficit, which may lead to higher taxes.

[ST1G]

[threadjack]
My paycheck bought my car, my taxes bought my roads... Why should it not be my right to drive my car on my roads?
[/threadjack]

Actually roads are typically paid for from gas tax, which if you're not driving you don't pay. The reason driving isn't a right is because not everyone can do it. Everyone has the right to free speech, even if they are blind, paraplegic, or have some other disability. Driving requires you to understand rules, how your body works, and acceptance of liability. Free speech does not have the ability to kill a family of 4.

[BraveUlysses]

Gas taxes do not cover the entire costs of roads, bad example.

[slammin.e28]

Gas taxes do not cover the entire costs of roads, bad example.

.....because it all goes to other things.....

[Schnitzer318is]

When I state our country's spending levels in a % of GDP it means exactly that, the percentage of our entire gross domestic product that is spent on healthcare which includes government and private expenditures.

I am not making the argument that the government should take over all healthcare spending at 17-18% of GDP, that is far too much of our entire GDP going to healthcare, especially compared to developed countries who cover every citizen with 100% coverage at half the % of GDP, which we seemingly cannot "afford".

Moving on, we can afford it as a country if we make the changes that we need to, but the political will is not there for much of the country, mostly due to the fuck you, got mine attitude that is so prevalent here.

Some of the changes made by ACA are positive steps in this direction but most of them do not go far enough to solve rising costs. My view is that we should extend medicare to all citizens.

As far as the national debt goes, try reading this:

Does the $16 Trillion Debt Matter? A Remedial Lesson in Public Finance Economics for the GOP (the CATO institute is a conservative think tank)

Now your position is more clear to me and I am in agreeance. I stated the same "Fuck you, I got mine" mentality in one of my other posts using different wording. I agree the ACA is a step in the right direction and that it could have gone much further if it weren't for the current political climate.

I still think the debt number is a problem (though not the entire amount as it is not all held by the gov't, which I should have clarified before hand). The article you linked to also supports what I was saying a few posts back in that spending has to be cut... period, from all different expenditures. So again, we are in agreeance.

The crux of my argument bolded above.
It's expensive BECAUSE insurance pays for it. Because insurance pays for it, the money's always there. Because insurance pays for it, you never negotiated necessity or price with the medical establishment. You said that he had the diagnosis with a $400 X-ray... Would you have let him do anything else if you were paying? Why?
(Also, why does 5 minutes of machine time cost $400?)



NO! Everyone needs health care; we just also need a system structured such that providers compete to lower prices. In other words, we need to GET RID OF health insurance as it's currently understood and make it more like auto insurance.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Everyone DOES need health care rather than health insurance. I understand the difference... but we have to take one step at a time for the reasons I mentioned previously. We have to make insurance cheaper first, and eventually do away with it in favor of single payer. I don't see a way to just outright pay for single payer in the political atmosphere we have now.

As for the cost of the X-Ray. I am perfectly fine paying $400 for a test. I don't know what the machine cost, and I'm sure they recoup their investment quickly... but you are still paying for the facility, support staff, radiologist, etc. Every business has overhead. As for the MRI, I think the price is exorbitant because it prices such services out of the reach of much of the population.

Would I have let them run the tests if I was paying? Yes, I could not breathe. That is a very scary experience... Would I have let them run the MRI knowing the cost? No, would have told the doc you have your diagnosis... now treat for it. It was a learning experience and I am glad I did not have to pay out of pocket for it. Many are not so lucky.

To sum up, I agree with both of you. Health care AND health insurance cost too much (because it's highly profitable as a private sector industry). All citizens should have access to health care.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Actually roads are typically paid for from gas tax, which if you're not driving you don't pay. The reason driving isn't a right is because not everyone can do it. Everyone has the right to free speech, even if they are blind, paraplegic, or have some other disability. Driving requires you to understand rules, how your body works, and acceptance of liability. Free speech does not have the ability to kill a family of 4.

It doesn't matter what tax; gas tax, income tax, sales tax or property tax... my taxes built the roads. I bought those roads. If driving isn't a right, I've been compelled to buy something of which I can't have guaranteed use. That's not fair.

Suits for slander, libel, defamation, etc. attest to the fact that there IS liability that goes along with the freedom of speech.
Do the mute have freedom of speech? The mute can't speak, the blind can't drive. I don't see why this makes speech a right and driving not.

Just like people need to learn to speak before they can exercise their right to free speech, people need to learn to drive before they can exercise that right. I'm not advocating letting untrained drivers on the road; I'm seeking to put an end to the abusive behavior that governments get away with under the false pretense that driving is a privilege. (Actually, government granted privileges are unconstitutional...)

Another analogy is that saying someone has the right to travel but not the right to drive is like saying that person has the right to self-defense but not the right to keep and bear arms.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Everyone DOES need health care rather than health insurance.

We have to make insurance cheaper first, and eventually do away with it in favor of single payer.

These two statements don't reconcile.

Single payer *IS* a form of health coverage. Someone else paying for each person's health care is the reason the system is screwed up right now. Combining all the different someone elses into one entity will just make matters worse because there's STILL no incentive for providers to reduce prices.

There are only two areas of medicine in which cost management is practiced: care of the rich and care of the poor. The rich pay their own way and want to get their money's worth without overpaying. The poor are cared for by charity or systemic overhead dollars which have to go as far as possible. In both cases, care is delivered with an eye toward cost and is WAY cheaper than most care delivered to people with coverage.

The Dallas/Ft Worth area has some of the highest systemic health costs anywhere in the country... Hospitals have to fill out certificates of need before they're allowed to order new equipment. On what planet does limiting supply lower costs and prices? That's how screwed up the system is, and there's no reason it would get better with a single payer.

[Schnitzer318is]

That's how screwed up the system is, and there's no reason it would get better with a single payer.

Single payer does not necessarily mean that the gov't would pay the insurance companies or the care provider. It is a system in which the gov't alone would pay for health care. Hence, single payer. That could be by working with/paying insurance companies, private hospitals, etc. Or it could mean they open their own facilities and hire their own personnel to supply care.

^Those other expenditures to single payer are the reason I don't think it's a viable option ATM. Like the UK, an entire infrastructure would most likely have to built as the gov't provides care to citizens publicly. In Canada, the gov't works with private sector to afford care. Not sure which way would work best here, but I'd prefer to see completely public health care ultimately...

[dadsbmw]

Actually roads are typically paid for from gas tax, which if you're not driving you don't pay. The reason driving isn't a right is because not everyone can do it. Everyone has the right to free speech, even if they are blind, paraplegic, or have some other disability. Driving requires you to understand rules, how your body works, and acceptance of liability. Free speech does not have the ability to kill a family of 4.

The reason driving isnt a right is because no one cares enough to make it one. If it were a debated issue and a large enough group of people gave a single shit to have an opinion about it, perhaps it would be.

It doesn't matter what tax; gas tax, income tax, sales tax or property tax... my taxes built the roads. I bought those roads. If driving isn't a right, I've been compelled to buy something of which I can't have guaranteed use. That's not fair.

Suits for slander, libel, defamation, etc. attest to the fact that there IS liability that goes along with the freedom of speech.
Do the mute have freedom of speech? The mute can't speak, the blind can't drive. I don't see why this makes speech a right and driving not.

Just like people need to learn to speak before they can exercise their right to free speech, people need to learn to drive before they can exercise that right. I'm not advocating letting untrained drivers on the road; I'm seeking to put an end to the abusive behavior that governments get away with under the false pretense that driving is a privilege. (Actually, government granted privileges are unconstitutional...)

Another analogy is that saying someone has the right to travel but not the right to drive is like saying that person has the right to self-defense but not the right to keep and bear arms.

The ability to drive is not required to use roads. Anyone who rides on a bus, rides in someones car, rides in a bike lane, etc. is using the road.

The public school system is funded by tax revenue and not everyone gets to use it, so i suppose that is unfair too. Would you argue that we should not have public schools?

Being mute doesnt mean you are lacking freedom of speech. As stated above, driving isnt a right because no one cares to make it one.

Id like to hear the argument showing that not having the right to drive makes using tax revenue to build/maintain roads "the abusive behavior that governments get away". This would suggest that making driving a right would make tax revenue spending on roads fair. This would still not be fair to people who chose not to drive (using your logic).

I dont get the point of your analogy. Youre making two equivalent statements but the point isnt clear.
You can travel without driving, you can defend yourself without guns... so?

[The Dark Side of Will]

The ability to drive is not required to use roads. Anyone who rides on a bus, rides in someones car, rides in a bike lane, etc. is using the road.

You can exercise your right to self defense without a gun, but you're a heck of a lot more effective with one.
IOW, your right to defend yourself is mostly ineffective without a gun, just like the right to travel is largely ineffective without a car. Sure, you can get somewhere by calling a taxi, taking a bus, etc., but when you're taking 2 hours to make a trip that would be 20 minutes driving yourself, or spending way more money on taxis that it would cost to own a car, or can only go somewhere when you can get a ride, your right to travel is largely infringed.

And you pay for the bus on a per-use basis, so it's a service more like water or eletricity than roads (ignoring for simplicity the fact that bus fares don't come close to paying for the bus system).

The public school system is funded by tax revenue and not everyone gets to use it, so i suppose that is unfair too. Would you argue that we should not have public schools?

It is unfair. Most county services are funded by property taxes which renters don't pay, while still absorbing county services. Also, I bought my house (and my car). Why do I have to pay the government rent to keep them?

In the US, we pay more per student than any other system in the world, yet have worse results. I would in fact argue that we shouldn't have public schools.

Being mute doesnt mean you are lacking freedom of speech. As stated above, driving isnt a right because no one cares to make it one.

Id like to hear the argument showing that not having the right to drive makes using tax revenue to build/maintain roads "the abusive behavior that governments get away". This would suggest that making driving a right would make tax revenue spending on roads fair. This would still not be fair to people who chose not to drive (using your logic).

Taxes aren't fair. My money is taken from me under the threat of force to pay for things I wouldn't pay for on my own.

The abusive behavior I was referring to has to do with jerking people around by their licenses. Registration, uninsured motorist fines, etc.

Of course people should have insurance, but when the state levies a $500 administrative fine with NO DUE PROCESS for letting insurance lapse on a vehicle that hasn't moved in a year, that's definitely abusive.

[Schnitzer318is]

Of course people should have insurance, but when the state levies a $500 administrative fine with NO DUE PROCESS for letting insurance lapse on a vehicle that hasn't moved in a year, that's definitely abusive.

Can you guys not register inop vehicle? We have that in Texas and of course aren't required to carry insurance on that car... just curious.

VA does seem to be a pretty expensive place to own and drive a vehicle though from what I've read here and other forums.

[dadsbmw]

You can exercise your right to self defense without a gun, but you're a heck of a lot more effective with one.
IOW, your right to defend yourself is mostly ineffective without a gun, just like the right to travel is largely ineffective without a car. Sure, you can get somewhere by calling a taxi, taking a bus, etc., but when you're taking 2 hours to make a trip that would be 20 minutes driving yourself, or spending way more money on taxis that it would cost to own a car, or can only go somewhere when you can get a ride, your right to travel is largely infringed.

So your initial claim was that driving should be a right because traveling is a right and you need to drive to travel. This statement is not true, however, because you're now saying that you don't NEED to drive to travel... but you should be able to because its more effective. Your claim now stands at: Driving should be a right because traveling is a right, and driving is the most effective way to travel.

So when traveling extremely long distances or over bodies of water, is driving still the most effective way to travel? Should people then be given the right to fly a plane? (Their own plane mind you from their own airport, because waiting in line to catch a flight at a time inconvenient to you is not very effective)

There may be reasons to argue for an individuals' right to drive a car, however yours is the wrong one.

And you pay for the bus on a per-use basis, so it's a service more like water or eletricity than roads (ignoring for simplicity the fact that bus fares don't come close to paying for the bus system).

So the logic here is that you are not using the road because a bus is a service and bus fares don't pay for the entireity bus system? My entire argument is that riding on a bus equates to you using a public road. Your argument does nothing to refute this.

It is unfair. Most county services are funded by property taxes which renters don't pay, while still absorbing county services. Also, I bought my house (and my car). Why do I have to pay the government rent to keep them?

Of course renters pay property taxes! Your claim here would seem to be that every property owner charges rent at a rate that does not in any way take into account property taxes, and that renters pay an amount equal to or less than the exact amount of each month's mortgage payment? What about property owners who have no mortgage? They are simply taking in the rent money as pure profit and paying property taxes separately as a loss? Its called income minus expenses.

As for the house you own... you pay property taxes to absorb all the county services you refer to. You literally just made the argument that getting those services for free is unfair, and then questioned why you cant get them for free.

In the US, we pay more per student than any other system in the world, yet have worse results. I would in fact argue that we shouldn't have public schools.

Why would you argue that we shouldnt have public schools? Because US schools under perform (what you seemingly claim) every public school system in the world? This argument seems to be completely separate from your overall thesis that taxes are unfair. So youre not opposed to the fact that public education is supported by tax revenue from people who dont have children?

Taxes aren't fair. My money is taken from me under the threat of force to pay for things I wouldn't pay for on my own.

The abusive behavior I was referring to has to do with jerking people around by their licenses. Registration, uninsured motorist fines, etc.

Of course people should have insurance, but when the state levies a $500 administrative fine with NO DUE PROCESS for letting insurance lapse on a vehicle that hasn't moved in a year, that's definitely abusive.

Taxes are not taken from you under the threat of force. What force do they threaten you with? If you evade or commit fraud then perhaps force can take place, but that isnt due to the tax part of that equation.

you are no better describing abusive behavior by saying it refers to jerking people around by their licenses, registration, uninsured motorists fines. this statement is too ambiguous to address.

As for your specific incident that is undoubtedly the impetus for your posts, I have no comment as I dont live in VA... I do however imagine it was a situation easily resolved by responding to appropriate correspondences and by following the law.

[mrsleeve]

The reason driving isnt a right is because no one cares enough to make it one. If it were a debated issue and a large enough group of people gave a single shit to have an opinion about it, perhaps it would be.?

Actually the reason driving is a privilege and not a right is because there are alternate means of getting from place to place. You can not be denied your right to freedom of travel, but you can be barred for driving, flying or means of transport. Because you still have other means getting to where you want to go even if that means walking your happy ass there.

[HarryPotter]

Just fucking incredible. It's so absurd how they get away with this shit, nobody even says a word about it, besides maybe fox news.