All Recent Comments |
 | View the latest comments posted to NoodleFood, regardless of the age of the post. |
|
Comments Posted on Friday, March 19, 2010 |
|
 | Zawistowski LTE, Rhoads OpEd |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 13:58:50 mst
Name: Bil Danielson
E-mail: bildanielson(at)yahoo.com
And then we get this inane commentary from Michelle Bachmann (R-MN)
Sabbath: Vote On Abortion
by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
"This is it. It seems that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is almost done twisting arms and leadership has just announced a vote in as little as 72 hours. That would make the final vote this Sunday.
I am abhorred that Pro-life democrats are asked to vote on a pro-abortion mandate this Sunday, the Sabbath. This is the Easter season for Christians, a period of time called lent. Speaker Pelosi is demanding pro-life Democrats profane the Sabbath with a vote that will force all Americans to pay for other people’s abortions. This is a first in American history and a new low for Speaker Pelosi and President Obama."
link: http://biggovernment.com/mbachmann/2010/03/19/sabbath-vote-on-abortion/
My message to Ms Bachmann is that you ought to reconsider your argument over the prospect that a pro-life democrat would be asked by their own leader during a Christian celebratory period (an arbitrary time frame on the calendar invented by the Romans) to vote on the health care bill because of its inclusion of abortion funding. Rational arguments are what is needed here, not appeals to the evangelical fringes of society.. While this may make you and some of your constituents feel better about their worship of the supernatural, it says nothing about the plain state of the matter - either you are opposed to government controlling your life, and therefore instituting a government mandated and controlled health care system, or you are not.
Either abortion ought to be purely a matter up to the control of the person in whom a fetus is, or not. If it is, then opposition to the health care bill vote merely due to the bizarre facts of Christian seasonal celebrations carries zero argumentative weight. Individual rights to both a market based health care system and abortion rights are utterly consonant.
If no such right exists, and abortion is not up to the individual (your implicit pro-life stance), then seasonal religious calendar conflicts cannot have a bearing because you are implicitly agreeing that others (society) have a right to control (either way) your body and its reproductive mechanism.. Such is part and parcel of your oppositions' premise FOR the health care bill..
You cannot have it both ways.. If you want to argue against this health care bill, the only legitimate and defend-able argument is premised upon individual rights, which implicitly include the right to control ones body - profoundly including the right to terminate a pregnancy.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 13:29:31 mst
Name: KTWO
E-mail: rksmann(at)yahoo.com
#38. It is a crime to overstate your dependents on your W-4. Not that it matters much, prosecution has been rare or non-existent.
If W-4 manipulation became a serious problem the government could counter quickly. That follows from the virtually unlimited power of the 16th amendment.
Congress might need to adjust legal details a little but they would. Your W-4 wouldn't stop them, it is advice to your employer's payroll department.
Government could simply order employers to deduct more from everyone - how about a flat rate of 30%? They can also order banks and brokers to withhold from interest paid or from security sales.
Actually my deduction rate was over 30% years ago. And when SS and Medicare, Workers Comp, FIT and SIT are considered employees often pay that much.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 13:07:56 mst
Name: Anthony
Aclay, filing a fraudulent w-4 can cause you to be subject to a 50% underpayment penalty under IRC 6653(b). Additionally there could be criminal penalties if they decide to make an example out of you.
If you were already aware of that, and were merely encouraging a bloody revolution, my apologies for interrupting.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Standing While Working |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 12:57:42 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Hi Joe -- That looks awesome, and not a terrible price either. Thanks!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Standing While Working |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 12:54:38 mst
Name: Joe Coder
E-mail: fty5x1502(at)sneakemail.com
You might take a look at GeekDesk (http://www.GeekDesk.com) -- they make a pretty cost effective adjustable height desk that a few colleagues of mine swear by.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 12:35:40 mst
Name: aclay1
E-mail: aclay1(at)gmail.com
What if we all increased the number of our dependents on out w-4s so that we did not pay any taxes? Starving the govenemnt of cash for a year would send a VERY strong message. That also gives us the option to start a no taxation without representation movement, where we have potentially billions stockplied.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| More Doctors Going Galt? |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 12:16:31 mst
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Paul Lin, I doubt Obama will veto the bill he's championed. I think the most logical course now is working toward repeal, while keeping an eye on court challenges. It's a less-than-desirable outcome, since I think it will be really difficult to muster support to repeal certain elements (such as the ban on discrimination against pre-existing conditions), but certain items, such as restoring high-deductible plans, may be easier to win back, perhaps as early as next year if the GOP reclaims the House and Obama is forced to work with them. It's a huge setback, but it isn't the end of the health care debate. Certainly the "progressives" won't settle for this bill. They still operate under the delusion that this isn't "liberal enough."
In the meantime, other battles await, particularly over the shape of financial regulation (which has some degree of bipartisan support), and climate change (expect a reinvigorated "progressive" wing to want to revive cap-and-trade). That said, health care is a unique circumstance since bills had already passed both Houses, opening up the "reconciliation" path to jam through changes to the Senate bill. Other bills can still be filibustered if the GOP maintains a united front. On issues like the environment, I'm not so sure (Snowe is a likely defector). On issues like financial regulation, it is more likely. Chris Dodd tried to please everyone and wound up pleasing no one with his proposal.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 12:09:29 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Folks, keep it civilized, please. (I just deleted those two posts from Robbins Mitchell and Warpublican.)
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 12:00:37 mst
Name: KTWO
E-mail: rksmann(at)yahoo.com
Blankenship0582: I agree there is still a rule of law. It is IMO fast vanishing. And I never saw an administration or Congress seem so eager to move that along.
A rule of law is merely wording. What happens depends upon government, for government is the natural home of those who want to rule all others. After all, where else would they wish to be?
By contrast, working in and for government is not of natural interest to those who want it limited.
But whether we will change course is unknown. Maybe there is more strength left in the more conservative elements in America than I see.
To others:
Jury nullification? Bruce is right. The government picks juries. Who do you think the judge works for? In a less abstract vein we know a proper jury acquittal is honored. I believe that was firmly established in the 16th - 17th Century. An important exception; jury tampering can negate all or any part of a trial.
The careful reader noted the weaseling in "proper jury acquittal." Ultimately judges decide what is proper and it varies by state and circumstance.
Double jeopardy is another consideration. One way is to separate charges and keep prosecuting until one sticks. Or bringing charges in multiple jurisdictions such as state and federal to get at least two shots at the defendant for the same act. This can make sense, the first trial may have been a sham designed to acquit and thus protect the defendant.
Supreme Court review of the procedure? IMO the SC has little or no reason to intervene about procedure in Congress. If Congress and the President say a law has been passed then it will be considered passed.
OTOH some provisions of ObamaCare can be tossed as unconstitutional.
Social Security is an income tax. The 16th amendment allows government to tax income to any extent. One can argue over what is "income" but that is about all. It will be impossible to challenge the higher income tax rates levied for ObamaCare.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| More Doctors Going Galt? |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 11:48:31 mst
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com
"Provider fees and insurance are linked. Insurance makes it easy for doctors to mask the prices from the consumers. It allows them to charge more AND keep the consumer ignorant on the price."
Yep. And just who has been encouraging the insane insurance-as-payment-for-everything model in health care for decades -- contrary to how insurance is used in all other domains -- and *continues* to push medical insurance down that path? (Hint: the answer begins with "g" and ends in "overnment.")
"Lets face it, we all know that there is a huge standard of living shift going on. The US standard is going down, while China and India are going up. Salaries in all professions will go down."
What evidence do you have for this "shift" that you are predicting? Why should anyone trust that prediction any more than, say, the popular predictions during the late 1980s that Japan would eclipse the USA?
"I even agree with Paul that if the government were ENTIRELY removed from health care (no Medicare, no licensing, no mandatory employer-sponsored insurance) we would be much better off. But this will never, ever, ever happen."
That's the old fallacy of "we're not going to do what we ought to do, so here's what we ought to do." Either advocate a change in policy or acquiesce to the status quo, but don't pretend that you can have it both ways.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 11:37:44 mst
Name: Anthony
Steven, I have read the bill(s) - both the senate bill and the reconciliation bill. I posted the urls in my previous message.
Dave, what is the principle? I attempted to address what seemed to me to be the principle, and why I do not believe it to be a rational principle, but perhaps you can explain the principle to me.
Also Dave, this bill most likely *will* pass, and it's not at all a given that *everyone* will lose his/her health insurance. It is certainly a possibility that the bill will be *repealed* before that happens.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| More Doctors Going Galt? |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 11:27:22 mst
Name: Jonathan Blaze
E-mail: jon(at)blaze.org
KPOM,
Provider fees and insurance are linked. Insurance makes it easy for doctors to mask the prices from the consumers. It allows them to charge more AND keep the consumer ignorant on the price. The insurance companies can just jack up their premiums and pass the costs on the pool of subscribers. Both doctors and insurers are in cahoots. The insurers offer doctors more money while taking their middleman fee. If insurance companies have to buckle down and reduce their payouts, then this will bring the price of medical services down, since both are linked.
Lets face it, we all know that there is a huge standard of living shift going on. The US standard is going down, while China and India are going up. Salaries in all professions will go down. This same thing has to also happen to the medical industry (doctors, hospitals, insurers). The current system is completely unsustainable. Doctors can't keep raping Medicare anymore, because the US can't afford it. Neither can the US populace afford the skyrocketing premiums used to pay overinflated medical costs.
I even agree with Paul that if the government were ENTIRELY removed from health care (no Medicare, no licensing, no mandatory employer-sponsored insurance) we would be much better off. But this will never, ever, ever happen. So we have to take what we can get. If that means more government intervention to right wrongs, so be it.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 11:09:51 mst
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
With the postings from Mitchell and Warpublican, I see that the standards of debate here have temporarily fallen into the sewer.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| More Doctors Going Galt? |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 10:57:18 mst
Name: The Egoist
E-mail: paul.linux.lin(at)gmail.com
KPO'M:
It is the people like Jonathan Blaze that need a reality lesson in economics. If this bill is passed, we have ten days to strike and force the president to veto the bill, or it's over. The Nazi/communists will take over the US, bit by bit - health care, high tax next, more public transportation, more regulations on businesses, more brainwashing in education, etc etc etc...
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| More Doctors Going Galt? |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 10:22:41 mst
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
You again. Since Paul and Diana tolerate your presence I'll attempt to engage you. If you hate the US so much, why not move to a place like Cuba where doctors operate for the good of society?
This bill does nothing to address costs, but will place greater strains on the system. It was constructed without regard to the actual health care providers, and focuses entirely on insurance, which is one reason why it's bound to not work as planned, even if what it was trying to do were a laudable goal (which it isn't).
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 9:52:18 mst
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
To the best of my knowledge, judges can ONLY set aside a "guilty" verdict by a jury. If a jury finds the defendant not guilty, it's final.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Amazon Tax Spreads to Other States |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 9:49:18 mst
Name: Benpercent
E-mail: Benpercent(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://benpercent.blogspot.com/
I hope Michigan doesn't take this route. Keep on fighting Diana. Though, if I may ask, why do you find this battle for Amazon Associates to be so important as opposed to other methods of revenue? I've heard that Google Adsense is much better.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Hsieh OpEd in PJM: "ObamaCare vs. the Hippocratic Oath" |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 9:24:35 mst
Name: Jonathan Blaze
The Hippocratic oath is a farce.
Doctors routinely bankrupt their patients with their excessive fees, leaving "Do no harm" to be a complete crock. Financial harm is real harm.
Open your eyes people, seriously.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| More Doctors Going Galt? |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 9:19:38 mst
Name: Jonathan Blaze
E-mail: jon(at)blaze.org
Good riddance, the gaps they leave will be quickly filled by those who actually want to help people, not financially rape them. Sure, it might sting for a bit, but the ultimate abandonment of the corrupt system in place today (and the corrupt doctors it has spawned) is a long term investment. Combine this with the new medical schools opening up, and American health care will be better, more efficient, and more affordable than ever.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 9:02:36 mst
Name: Al Reasin
E-mail: amr1507(at)aol.com
URL: http://www.patriotscornerclub.ning.com
Surround and notify them that no one can enter or leave until the bill is scraped by our employees. If the automatic weapons carrying Capitol Police are ordered to move on us, make them chose killing fellow Americans, as the Republican Guards did in Iran to their fellow citizens, or disobeying an unlawful order to defend this corruption. I volunteer to be first to confront them as others did during MLK's time during that earlier battle for liberty. I am old and I know from history that I would not be free for long under our developing repressive government; My 30 weeks of Standing For Freedom at my Freedom Corners and my other efforts have seemly not changed many minds in DC and as Jefferson said, " . . . . the tree of liberty needs to be watered by the blood of patriots . . . .".
When I think of the disrespect from this congress and administration for my 4 generations of family that have served to defend our freedom and Constitution, including my son now in Iraq, and the millions of Americans who have died or been forever disabled for their sacrifice for American freedom over our county`s history, I get angry at our government and all chocked up for the sacrifice of our citizens over these many years, as I am now. These congress people need to stand in front of those thousands of white crosses in Europe and reflect on their own honor, our freedom and our country's worth as I have.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 8:54:42 mst
Name: Bruce
E-mail: bemmott(at)verizon.net
URL: http://brucesplace.net/wordpress
Quote: "Juries are the sole trier of facts and their decision is final; no judge can overrule them"
Absolutely UNTRUE. Judges set aside jury verdicts all the time, and in fact have the right to do so.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 8:39:09 mst
Name: Steven
E-mail: writeby(at)hotmail.com
Since no one has even read the bill, the details are unknown. The only thing that's certain is that Obamacare is *intended* to guarantee government funded healthcare--in whatever form it will take--to every man, woman, child and abortion in the United People's States of America.
It'll be, in terms of application, like the government retirement accounts we all have.
So when was the last time anyone had the opportunity to opt out of Social Security?
And would anyone claim that *every* individual who hasn't a retirement account is selfless?
Puhleeze.
So Dr. Berstein's choice is one rationally selfish option.
However, long before it ever gets to that, a suit challenging the Constitutionality of the bill's method of passage (the only way it ever can be passed now) will be heard by the Supremes.
Bank on it.
And after Obama's SOTU speech, asking the SCOTUS for a ruling on the matter would be akin to having asked Cicero for a ruling on the guilt or innocence of Catilina.
Is there anyone in America, outside of the petty, manipulative, opportunistic, demagogic thug residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, that doesn't know what will be the Court's ruling?
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 8:31:20 mst
Name: Dave
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
To Terry (comment #2): Where have you been the last 75+ years? Haven't you learned yet that EVERYTHING the government sticks it's nose in ends up being regulated and controlled by government? OF COURSE it's a takeover; they're just not willing to admit it.
If this monstrosity passes, Dr. Bernstein WILL eventually lose his good health insurance one way or another, as will everyone else. Please do not be so concrete-bound, and learn to think in fundamentals.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 8:23:07 mst
Name: Dave
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
A few quick points:
Anthony -- Andrew Bernstein's stand is the most RATIONALLY SELFISH one out there. Remember that this is also a matter of principle; Dr. Bernstein may have no desire to cooperate with or be ruled by a government that is hell-bent on destruction. We are not as far gone as the society in Atlas Shrugged, so fighting this is NOT futile, KTWO. The rule of law still exists, and the BIG GUNS in this cultural battle are just now beginning to charge up (Objectivism being the 'Big Gun').
WKeller: Just because Americans want something does NOT make it right! Socialism is evil no matter WHO advocates it or how MANY people advocate it. Most of the regulars here STRONGLY oppose socialist healthcare, even if 98% of the world demands it!
I applaud Dr. Bernstein's stance on this issue, and urge everyone here to encourage and support him!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 8:13:57 mst
Name: Chris R
E-mail: headbanger_11421(at)yahoo.com
I am currently unemployed. If I ever get a job, I will also decline to purchase insurance. I am somewhat fortunate in this respect since, as long as Obama is in the White House, I will probably never find a decent job.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| More Doctors Going Galt? |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 8:09:02 mst
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Money Magazine is out with some more details on how this bill is funded. It's worth a read. Fees on the medical industry raise about $107 billion over 10 years.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-Democrats-will-pay-for-hmoney-259 ...=
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 7:51:53 mst
Name: Al Myers
E-mail: mearsly(at)hotmail.com
Congratulations on the Instapundit link!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Amazon Tax Spreads to Other States |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 7:49:55 mst
Name: Kevin McAllister
E-mail: kevin(at)mcallister.ws
URL: http://logicaldisconnect.org/
The lower tax receipts are causing the statists to grasp at any blatant rights violating measure in an attempt to keep the game afloat. The Mayor of Philadelphia recently proposed a sugary drinks tax: "The sugary drinks tax would be 2 cents per ounce of soda, juice and other sugar beverages. That tax would be charged to retailers, as part of their business privilege tax."
And just like those trying to squeeze Amazon attempt to argue for the atrocity by claiming they're rich, and putting local people out of work so they need to give back. They have a ready made rationalization for the newest sin tax the "obesity epidemic." We're doing it for your own good, it's save healthcare costs.
I can only hope that under this assault the "Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Company" decides to leave town too, assuming they can find somewhere to go and be productive.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 7:33:55 mst
Name: Iamtomisbehave
E-mail: jimm324242(at)hotmail.com
I won't pay this. I won't go peacefully when they come to arrest me either.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Hsieh OpEd in PJM: "ObamaCare vs. the Hippocratic Oath" |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 7:05:59 mst
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
I think it's officially time to launch into the next phase of opposition. Another congressman (Boccieri) is holding a press conference at 10:40 today to say he's caved. It seems like Pelosi and Obama will win the vote on Sunday. The Blue Dogs are proving to be pretty spineless. The challenge to us is not to overplay the hand dealt on Sunday, and not to assume the public will remain angry. With health care behind them for the moment, the left will shift to other topics, and they will likely adopt a "go left" strategy on things like the environment, financial regulation, and other controversial topics.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| More Doctors Going Galt? |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 7:02:32 mst
Name: The Egoist
E-mail: paul.linux.lin(at)gmail.com
I wonder how many of them are willing to strike immediately, if the bill is passed. If there is enough to cause a disruption that gets the president's attention, he will have to think twice before signing the bill.
Up to this point, I think it is important strategically to think about the next move - to do the necessary preparation for a possible strike. The number of physicians matter. The demand of the curve is inelastic, so a small supply shock will drive the price up, which will immediately let the people see the long-term consequences of socialized medicine in front of their eyes.
An organized strike against government regulations with the invisible hand (supply and demand) on our side can be a valuable bargain chip in a negotiation table, if the president wants to negotiate.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Open Thread #147 |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 6:59:04 mst
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi is doing a good Doug Flutie impression with the "Hail Mary" play.
That said, the more I listen to the GOP the more I realize they can never be a long-term solution. For example, consider the whole debate over the "deemed pass" strategy. They focused too much on the mechanics of the "Slaughter Rule" and took self-righteous positions about how it was unconstitutional. Of course, they used it when they were in power, too (mostly on small measures, but still, they used it). The argument should have been that the "Slaughter Rule," while legally valid, just underscored the unpopularity of the bill and showed that Democrats wanted to avoid having to make a direct vote. That's an easy message to explain. Since the GOP has ceded the moral position to the left, they fall flat when they try to moralize, and should stop doing it.
I'll vote GOP this fall since the "blue dogs" turned out to be pretty yellow, but I still don't know what the least undesirable party is. Perhaps divided government with the GOP in control of the House (what we had under Clinton) works best. However, Obama is likely to draw the lesson from this whole thing that he should govern to the left, since the bill floundered for over a year as he ostensibly tried to govern to the center (from the left's perspective, at least).
In the end, the problem is that politicians of both parties view themselves as smarter than the rest of us. The GOP thinks they need to explain everything in simplistic terms using false, melodramatic moralism (even when they are usually completely clueless about right vs wrong, and lack a solid philosophical base). The Democrats think they know what's best for us and see themselves as parents "protecting" the populace from the evils of the world (even as they are usually the ones promoting evil ideas).
It's a long time until November. A lot can change, and my concern is that the Democrats will do better than expected, particularly if the economy picks up and unemployment starts to go down. Now that they think they have a winning formula of governing to the left, they are a more dangerous political force.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Friday, March 19, 2010 at 6:05:08 mst
Name: buddy larsen
E-mail: buddylarsen(at)gmail.com
Mr. Mitchell, you might want to stick to the issue at hand --actions plenty enough needful of the strongest criticism on the merits --your post as is just confirms what every leftist wants to believe --that there's nothing wrong with communism, the problem is all racial. This may be so with some few, but it assuredly isn't with the great most.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
Comments Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2010 |
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 23:33:30 mst
Name: Anthony
"But anyone who is affected by the health insurance mandate is *already* paying over 50 times as much in taxes as the additional tax on people without health insurance."
Sorry, I miscalculated that. If the individual mandate tax is 2% of income then "over 15 times as much" is probably more accurate (maybe a little less if your income is mostly from long term capital gains or qualified dividends). Still, the point is, if you want to commit tax evasion and hope for a jury nullification, you've got plenty of reasons to do so besides this individual mandate.
What if the government had raised taxes by 2% on everyone making above 133% of poverty, and then gave everyone a 2% tax credit fr buying insurance? It'd be effectively the same thing as the "individual mandate".
There are so many parts of this bill which are so much worse than the individual mandate. I haven't heard it mentioned by anyone yet, but when I read the bill I see they increased the employer mandate fee from $750 to $2000. That alone is probably going to have a worse effect on the economy than the individual mandate - a $2000 "excise tax" on an employee making $17,000/year is a whopping 12%.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 23:17:38 mst
Name: Anthony
"I don't know what the new rules are, but if insurance companies are required to cover all pre-existing conditions regardless of the condition, then there is no real reason to purchase healthcare."
A few points. First of all, when you say "healthcare", I assume you mean "health insurance". If you really mean "healthcare" then I just have no clue what you're talking about. The real reason to purchase "healthcare" is so that you don't get dead.
Secondly, even if this bill passes and lasts through 2014 when the pre-existing conditions clauses come into effect, there still is a very important reason to purchase health insurance: because the system is guaranteed to fail, and it very well may fail during your lifetime.
So yes, I'd say that refusing to buy health insurance, *if* you can find a policy at an affordable price, is an act of selflessness. When the bill gets repealed and you're stuck without coverage because you tried to game the system, you'll deserve exactly what you get. I think "selfless" is actually a perfect word to describe a policy of REFUSING to buy something simply because the government MANDATES it. It's acting based on what someone else wants you to do, and not on what is best for you.
That said, if you can't get health insurance through an employer, and you're stuck with the individual market, when the rates in that market go through the roof, then obviously you've gotta do what you've gotta do. If you can't find a health insurance policy at a fair price for what you want, then obviously you ought not buy health insurance. But that's far from outright refusing to buy health insurance simply because the government has "mandated it". So don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's selfless to refuse to buy health insurance. I'm saying it's selfless to refuse to buy health insurance *solely because the government has mandated it*.
And what did they really do to "mandate" health insurance, anyway? They've charged people a higher tax rate (up to 2% of income) if they don't buy health insurance. The government also charges a higher tax rate if you don't own a house, or if you don't have any kids. Should we REFUSE to buy houses and/or have kids, because the government has used the tax law to try to coerce us into it?
If you want to refuse to pay your taxes I'm not going to criticize you over it. But anyone who is affected by the health insurance mandate is *already* paying over 50 times as much in taxes as the additional tax on people without health insurance. The tax for not having health insurance is just going to get lumped in with everything else on your income tax return. If you refuse to pay it (I guess by reducing your April 15th tax payment by the amount of that tax), they'll garnish your wages, or levy your bank account, or put a lien against your property. They'll get the money. It's highly unlikely you'll be arrested, so long as you file that tax return (something which, if you are subject to the tax, you were required to do anyway) and don't lie on your tax return. In fact, the bill even says in it that "In the case of failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section [i.e. the individual mandate], such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution..." (http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-ca ...) So as much as I hate to burst your dreams of being the next Ed or Elaine Brown (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/05/national/main3336075.shtml), if you restrict your protest to merely not paying your individual mandate tax, you're not going to get that arrest or criminal trial by jury.
To KPO'M: what is your deductible? The Senate bill limits out-of-pocket expenses to the same as the current limits for HSAs ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for family coverage, see http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/status-of-hsas-and-consumer-driven ... In my experience there are very few policies with deductibles higher than that.
To everyone here, please be sure you get your facts straight before talking about the bill. Especially those of you who are criticizing it - exaggerating what the bill says doesn't help our cause (yes, *our* cause, I am extremely opposed to this bill myself). http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/show and http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4872/show Read it.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 22:34:58 mst
Name: KTWO
E-mail: rksmann(at)yahoo.com
I certainly have mixed feelings about those who state they will resist. IMO it is not wrong but it is futile for now.
The US government is strong at home. And strong governments tend to destroy a lot of resisters to stay that way. The Constitution may mean nothing.
The nation itself may be disintegrating, no one can be sure or know how or when. History shows tyrannies can last for centuries despite being both inept and unpopular.
While resisters remain few and unorganized the government will be unconcerned. They may merely arrest you and put you on trial as an example to others.
But later, when resistance has grown and seems serious, governments tend to send goons to your door. Then you disappear.
The questions is not whether a jury may nullify some verdict today. Or whether we have had a judicial system with high ideals, or whether unpopular laws have been repealed in the past. Or even whether elections have been honestly run.
The real questions are about the future. Will you will even get a trial by jury? Will the judicial system remain even nominally fair? Will anyone be allowed to even question laws in the future?
And all those depend upon honest elections and honest news.
Humpty Dumpty said "the question is who is to be the master, that is all?"
Or as Lenin said "What is to be done, and who will do it?
For me personally ObamaCare with the attached tax increases and mandates will cost me $10 - 20K/year. Whatever it costs I won't be paying it for long.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 22:22:23 mst
Name: Anonymous
Leftist tyranny... "for the children," of course!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 22:14:59 mst
Name: buddy larsen
E-mail: buddylarsen(at)gmail.com
amen, Charlie Chaztips --from just west of Austin, i hears ya loud & clear --
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 22:11:52 mst
Name: buddy larsen
E-mail: buddylarsen(at)gmail.com
Three cheers for Andrew Bernstein! Hell, SIX cheers --and a few stanzas of "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" too !
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 22:09:39 mst
Name: WKeller
E-mail: wkeller(at)mebbs.com
For those of you saying this is not a direct take-over of the healthcare system, you need to look a bit closer. Although actual legislative language is not available anywhere, the language that does appear clearl states that ALL POLICIES must meet the demands of the governmental exchange. That means you will no longer be able to taylor your policy to your family with your insurance agent. Just how long do you think it will take the government to review each and every policy available from the 1,600 insurance companies in the US. Where are the rules? What do the policies have to provide for? If they all have to meet the same parameters, why the hell have any insurance companies at all?
I actually have no problem going down the socialist healthcare route - as long as the American people take us down that path. By a 2 to 1 margin, americans DO NOT want either the house or senate plan implemented. And, if I am required to purchase a plan that demands that I contribute to financing abortions, I will simply cancel my plans, I will not pay the fines and I will defend my property by all means necessary.
These are dark days for our country with a borderline facist in the Whitehouse. I suspect he will learn some suprising lessons about Americans.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 22:09:30 mst
Name: Charlie
E-mail: chaztips(at)gmail.com
You guys are on your own.
Us Texans will either secede or pretty soon there will be some opulent clinics popping up just on the other side of the Rio Grande.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 22:01:59 mst
Name: DaneilS
E-mail: daneils864(at)gmail.com
URL: http://questioningrobespierre.blogspot.com
If only Obama would take a hint. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 21:40:31 mst
Name: skatzbert
E-mail: skatzbert(at)aol.com
Arrest? Perhaps. Trial? Perhaps. Conviction? Wellll, hold on there just a minute. We have, as a matter of English Common Law, a neat device called jury nullification. Juries are the sole trier of facts and their decision is final; no judge can overrule them. A jury can quite easily find a defendant not guilty, even though clearly guilty, if they feel the law is unjust. It is the last defense against a government gone mad.
In part, this led to the repeal of Prohibition. The government didn't simply repeal the 18th Amendment out of the kindness of their hearts. Opinion turned against the law and increasingly, juries were simply refusing to convict people charged under the statutes. The government took the hint...
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 21:31:34 mst
Name: Rob
Maybe this is the beginning of the "No We Won't" movement. Count me in.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 21:19:07 mst
Name: Thomass
Name: KPO'M
"Terry, the government, under the revised Senate bill, would mandate what insurance companies can sell (basically one of three basic types of plans), and force individuals to buy coverage from them. That is effectively a takeover. HHS and the IRS would be charged with enforcing these provisions."
Yeah, and they're going to plan exactly what they can cover, what doctors will earn, et cetera. The insurance companies will be GSE's and/or regulated public utilities...
And it is by design… whenever socialists take over a healthcare system they try to use the takeover to force equal care on everyone (except themselves / the elites). Ie, take money (on the demand side / what you are allowed to buy) and profits (via a public system or heavy regulation of providers on the supply side) out of the system... The left wing magical thinking being that these moves will make things better… and I guess it does if your [leftist] value system thinks equality is better than what normal people value (like, actually good medical care for the most people possible).
In most cases, the public revolts enough eventually that a public / private system reasserts itself… but it always against the wishes of those who did the initial take over.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 21:14:29 mst
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Sajid, that's exactly right. For those for whom 2.5% of income is less than the cost of a health policy, it may be less costly under the proposed rules to simply pay the fine and then ask for insurance only after contracting an illness. The "guaranteed issue" provision is what requires the individual mandate and the fines necessary to enforce the mandate. Mind you, states like New York and Massachusetts that have "guarantee issue" laws also have the highest insurance rates and fewest competitors. It's a classic case of government intervention begetting government intervention.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 21:10:19 mst
Name: ic
E-mail: ilschiu(at)hotmail.com
Don't be silly. They are going to deduct the max from your paychecks, then you can claim refunds (yeah, a "govt" check) on April 15.
They are also going to Rahm immigration amnesty down our throats. They may lose one election cycle, but will return to power perpetually after that because of the overwhelming new immigrants. Your Mas'er said as much that he'd consider the Slaughter Rule to slaughter us with his immigration bill. Those of you who voted for him in 2008 should consider either slit your own throats or check into a sanitorium. The rest of us have you to thank for.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 21:06:53 mst
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Terry, the government, under the revised Senate bill, would mandate what insurance companies can sell (basically one of three basic types of plans), and force individuals to buy coverage from them. That is effectively a takeover. HHS and the IRS would be charged with enforcing these provisions.
Bernstein might well have a high deductible plan much like mine, which would be outlawed under the bill. High deductible plans have actually proven to be more effective at keeping costs down than other insurance plans. Plus, they provide sufficient coverage for many of us, and leave us in control of our spending on the everyday care. The plans under the Senate bill don't do that.
I will grant the Senate bill one thing. It does aim to reduce Medicare spending. Medicare is already a government program, is broke (facing a $38 trillion unfunded liability) and should be cut. The GOP feels it can't because they got burned by the electorate in 1996 for proposing reducing Medicare spending. However, the Democrats still don't actually reduce Medicare spending (they just claim to slow its growth), and then use the money to establish another spending program (to buy subsidized insurance for up to 30 million.
Between the mandates on employers, insurers, and consumers, the expansion of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the expansion of Medicaid, and the establishment of subsidies, I'd say this qualifies as a de facto government takeover. It essentially transforms the insurers into public utilities, or agents acting at the behest of the government (much like a "privatized" toll road operator). I'd say Bernstein is right on, and that you are mistaken.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 20:57:39 mst
Name: CitizenCain
E-mail: CitizenCain(at)mailinator.com
Time to call the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Phone number is (703) 695-3337.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivists Speak Out Against ObamaCare |
| Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 20:50:43 mst
Name: On the way to the poor house
E-mail: smartsy66(at)yahoo.com
The worst part of this so-called Obamacare is that we will all bare the brunt of huge tax increases immediately but the benefits will not begin for at least 4 years. My guess is that the federal government will be bankrupt within 4 years and then we'll not have to worry about the IRS chasing us down to collect the fines and to throw us in jail. A POX on the house of every politician that votes for this healthcare bill.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
