Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Amaya wrote:

Dogma for Philosopher-King?

I'd vote for that. But they would tell me a story on how I'm made of bronze and he's made of gold, and that's why I don't get a vote.

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
Sucks for them, why do I have to buy health insurance though?

I really don't care if the government does or does not provide/fund health care, but making people buy health insurance who do not want it is bull.

You have to buy it because it is the law, remember the video?

So was having a law that made hospitals save your life,even if you didn't have health insurance or money to pay them, even though they didn't want to bull as well?

then they don't have to but it and can instead pay the tax/fine

deleted

 Amaya wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Sucks for them, why do I have to buy health insurance though?

I really don't care if the government does or does not provide/fund health care, but making people buy health insurance who do not want it is bull.

You have to buy it because it is the law, remember the video?

So was having a law that made hospitals save your life,even if you didn't have health insurance or money to pay them, even though they didn't want to bull as well?

We all have to die sometime.

Let's just assume that you have health insurance now, and you go to the emergency room only to find out that this hospital isn't in your network. You think they should be legally able to kick you out the door to die if they don't want to treat you?

deleted

Its allowed but its a tax. So technically it passed under false pretense. Shuma actually made me relook at this awhile back and I decided....its not my issue because I'm already covered.

 Amaya wrote:
Well, I would appreciate it if they made it quicker.

And that is why we don't let a majority of people make laws.

"But.. but it inconveniences ME, therefor everyone hates it!"

deleted

 Amaya wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Well, I would appreciate it if they made it quicker.

And that is why we don't let a majority of people make laws.

I'm pretty sure my specific opinions toward death and life are in a very extreme minority.

According to the people that keep on making noise, the opinion that "if you can't afford it, then you should not get healthcare" is fairly popular though.

deleted

 Amaya wrote:
Most would sing a different tune if they were bleeding out on a sidewalk.

According to you that doesn't matter, because the majority of people would rather the poor die

deleted

 Amaya wrote:

If you have a 2/3rd majority, legally it should pass.

Of Congress, but not necessarily the population. That's why the question is interesting. If the majority of people want to do something that is ridiculous or terrible, should Congress abide their wishes?

Hence not vote on your representative next time.

deleted

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

It's also quite hard to have a direct or participative democracy with 340+ million people. Hell, I've been to a few general assembly lately, and even with 700+ it becomes a clusterfeth.

True enough. Another good comparison is the instability of the US House relative to the US Senate.

 Amaya wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Most would sing a different tune if they were bleeding out on a sidewalk.

According to you that doesn't matter, because the majority of people would rather the poor die

Or maybe they don't like being forced to buy health insurance. ;D

You are not, you can just pay the fine and the hospital would have to treat you anyway.

deleted

 dogma wrote:

Of Congress, but not necessarily the population. That's why the question is interesting. If the majority of people want to do something that is ridiculous or terrible, should Congress abide their wishes?

No. The government has the responsability to protect the people from all threats, including from themselves. If the claim is legitimate, the people will use means of peaceful civil disobedience. If it's illegitimate and stems from fascists asswipes, then they will resort to violence and be put down.

It's why I wish we still had a provincial senate. The student strike would have been resolved before it caused 5 months of public demonstrations and institutionnal paralysis.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
What can I say? not a lotta love for Quebec over here on the coast.

NB? Oh feth if I care then. The Anglo Society ruined our opinion of that place. I spent years in Alberta preaching about Quebec sovereignty without meeting the type of hatred (or even the slightest degree of animosity) that those morons display.

Also, we're going toward a new referendum, apparently.

Hell no. Other coast. The good one.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:


I don't know about that, there's a lot of hotties in BC I find.

Surrey girls are easy, but not as hot.

Women in BC are really hot, but they dress like white trash that's just given up. I don't know how anyone could ever bring themselves to go out in public wearing sweat pants and Uggs, yet that's like a uniform out here.

Surrey is an irritating place.

Amaya wrote:Sucks for them, why do I have to buy health insurance though?

I really don't care if the government does or does not provide/fund health care, but making people buy health insurance who do not want it is bull.

You're right. That is a stupid system. That's why I keep saying y'all would be better off if your government would just pay for your health care. Kinda like a single-payer system. Now, if only there was another country nearby with a system like that...

A great example for this is a fire-tax vs. a subscription fire service.

Everybody could be forced to buy fire insurance (the tax) or they could choose to purchase fire insurance (the subscription model).

There have been plenty of cases where a owner didn't buy a subscription only to find their house on fire. The fire department shows up to make sure the neighbors house doesn't catch on fire, because neighbor paid his subscription.

But owner cries to the fire department to take his money now, because it is unfair that his house burns down, he meant to buy the subscription but didn't read the 3 notices. The news and community crucify the department because they are heartless bastards and should have put the house out anyway.

The Fire Department then tries to pass a fire tax instead of being a subscription department. But taxes are evil, and homeowners shouldn't be forced to buy fire insurance if they didn't want to which is basically what the fire tax is going to be. Next year another house burns down that didn't buy a subscription and the fire department doesn't put it out. The cycle repeats every few years.

The moral of the story is this:

People don't want to pay money for something they don't need right now, but they want it when they need it even though they shouldn't have been forced to pay for it to begin with. Forcing people to pay for what they are going to need at some point makes you a socialist.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

Dogma for Philosopher-King?

I'd vote for that. But they would tell me a story on how I'm made of bronze and he's made of gold, and that's why I don't get a vote.

Right, I give up, I know the made of bronze/made of gold is a reference to something I've seen somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me work out what that is, can you please tell me?

deleted

d-usa wrote:A great example for this is a fire-tax vs. a subscription fire service.

Everybody could be forced to buy fire insurance (the tax) or they could choose to purchase fire insurance (the subscription model).

There have been plenty of cases where a owner didn't buy a subscription only to find their house on fire. The fire department shows up to make sure the neighbors house doesn't catch on fire, because neighbor paid his subscription.

But owner cries to the fire department to take his money now, because it is unfair that his house burns down, he meant to buy the subscription but didn't read the 3 notices. The news and community crucify the department because they are heartless bastards and should have put the house out anyway.

The Fire Department then tries to pass a fire tax instead of being a subscription department. But taxes are evil, and homeowners shouldn't be forced to buy fire insurance if they didn't want to which is basically what the fire tax is going to be. Next year another house burns down that didn't buy a subscription and the fire department doesn't put it out. The cycle repeats every few years.

The moral of the story is this:

People don't want to pay money for something they don't need right now, but they want it when they need it even though they shouldn't have been forced to pay for it to begin with. Forcing people to pay for what they are going to need at some point makes you a socialist.

I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist. I'm not a fan of communists, but socialism is pretty great.

Amaya wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Amaya wrote:Sucks for them, why do I have to buy health insurance though?

I really don't care if the government does or does not provide/fund health care, but making people buy health insurance who do not want it is bull.

You're right. That is a stupid system. That's why I keep saying y'all would be better off if your government would just pay for your health care. Kinda like a single-payer system. Now, if only there was another country nearby with a system like that...

Canada does have a better system (other than the queues). Hell, aside from the cold Canada is probably a better country all around. Having a relatively small homogeneous population is, IMO, a good thing. I wish America really was a melting pot...

Again: there are no significant queues. You still haven't cited a reputable source for your claim, despite my request. And Canada's population is absolutely no more homogeneous than the USA's; and the size doesn't affect health care systems because the systems are based on rates.

I wish Canada was a melting pot, too.

 azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:A great example for this is a fire-tax vs. a subscription fire service.

Everybody could be forced to buy fire insurance (the tax) or they could choose to purchase fire insurance (the subscription model).

There have been plenty of cases where a owner didn't buy a subscription only to find their house on fire. The fire department shows up to make sure the neighbors house doesn't catch on fire, because neighbor paid his subscription.

But owner cries to the fire department to take his money now, because it is unfair that his house burns down, he meant to buy the subscription but didn't read the 3 notices. The news and community crucify the department because they are heartless bastards and should have put the house out anyway.

The Fire Department then tries to pass a fire tax instead of being a subscription department. But taxes are evil, and homeowners shouldn't be forced to buy fire insurance if they didn't want to which is basically what the fire tax is going to be. Next year another house burns down that didn't buy a subscription and the fire department doesn't put it out. The cycle repeats every few years.

The moral of the story is this:

People don't want to pay money for something they don't need right now, but they want it when they need it even though they shouldn't have been forced to pay for it to begin with. Forcing people to pay for what they are going to need at some point makes you a socialist.

I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist. I'm not a fan of communists, but socialism is pretty great.

I am just using socialism as the dirty word that many people think it is as well as the word that most people don't really know what it is supposed to mean.

I personally am a fan of a Government that is a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism.

d-usa wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist. I'm not a fan of communists, but socialism is pretty great.

I am just using socialism as the dirty word that many people think it is as well as the word that most people don't really know what it is supposed to mean.

I personally am a fan of a Government that is a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism.

Indeed. I've always been in favour of a capitalist system, heavily regulated by the federal government. Economics isn't my strongest suit, but I think that's the Keynesian system?

EDIT: Of course, with all social services being provided by the government and paid for through taxation.

 azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist. I'm not a fan of communists, but socialism is pretty great.

I am just using socialism as the dirty word that many people think it is as well as the word that most people don't really know what it is supposed to mean.

I personally am a fan of a Government that is a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism.

Indeed. I've always been in favour of a capitalist system, heavily regulated by the federal government. Economics isn't my strongest suit, but I think that's the Keynesian system?

EDIT: Of course, with all social services being provided by the government and paid for through taxation.

Not sure if there is a fancy name for it. I just think that capitalism works great for most things, but stuff that our life depends on shouldn't be decided based on if we can afford it or not.