We actually do have public health care in America. It's just badly organized. Now, it will be organized even worse.
My apologies -- I wasn't aware that you were speaking of the medical condition. I thought you were saying "ataxia" saracstically, as "the condition of not being taxed."
Taxes are always a bad thing, since they drain and punish the productive in the economy. However, what the taxes purchase may be a good enough thing to justify the evil of taxing in the first place. Imagine that there was a tax which was paid in kind and the goods were promptly tossed into a subduction zone ... then you would plainly see that the tax by itself was evil. Only insane regimes would do the real-world equivalent, though: most States tax with at least the intent of spending the money to provide their citizens with some benefit.
I think it's far more likely that health insurers will simply pack up and dissolve. If their investors can't make a decent return, then they'll pull out and put their money in businesses that do. Health insurance isn't an "essential" business. It's a luxury business. If it becomes too hard for them to do business, they'll just start doing something else that returns a profit without having to make like a contortionist just to run their day-to-day operation.
It's already been been mathematically demonstrated that the "employer-provided" measures in the bill aren't actually going to do anything more than raise operating costs without actually getting more workers health coverage.
So, in summary: so far this bill is likely to raise the cost of living, and effectively eliminate private health insurers.
expect to see a lot of health care go to india and other countries. Originally most major medical companies were planning on going to the Bahama's, but that was found out and things were done to prevent that.
But yeah, expect to see life expectancy drop drastically.
This bill was *always* intended for this purpose. to break, irrevocably, our current healthcare system, so that it becomes the only option to introduce canada-style single payor.
The medicare actuary has stated that this bill *tripples* the growth of medical spending.
Even more ominously, a health care system which is primarily run by the State can also deny coverage to any ill person whose existence the State finds less than perfectly convenient. Rebels, dissidents ... the old ...
The genetically "differently abled." Anybody who's lot can, with broad brush strokes, be painted as a life you wouldn't want to live for a big enough group....
Death to Fat Peoplejordan179June 29 2012, 16:22:34 UTC
Given the American Left's current hostility to fat people, what's going to happen to them under Obamacare? No, I don't think that the government will actively pursue a policy of "let fat people die," but I do think that the government may increase demands that fat people lose weight before getting treatment.
Many people who are not fat imagine that it's easy to lose weight ("just stop eating.") It's not: in many cases obesity comes from hormonal imbalances which would make crash-dieting exceedingly dangerous; in some cases these could be the very same hormonal imbalances which lead to the person needing medical treatment.
What happens to an ill fat person at the mercy of a bureaucrat who's convinced that fat people are just "lazy gluttons" who choose to be fat? Remember, depending on the configuration of the bureaucracy, the patient might not have any other appeal -- or, depending on his condition -- he might die while waiting for his appeal to go through.
Hey Jordan, I was not aware your comments section was an extension of 4chan. I will petition to have your journal added to the Mozilla Firefox 4chan add-on at the earliest possible date.
Comments 231
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Btw, why would you imagine that we should be ashamed, or you proud, of being taxed? Do you so much love your chains?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
My apologies -- I wasn't aware that you were speaking of the medical condition. I thought you were saying "ataxia" saracstically, as "the condition of not being taxed."
Taxes are always a bad thing, since they drain and punish the productive in the economy. However, what the taxes purchase may be a good enough thing to justify the evil of taxing in the first place. Imagine that there was a tax which was paid in kind and the goods were promptly tossed into a subduction zone ... then you would plainly see that the tax by itself was evil. Only insane regimes would do the real-world equivalent, though: most States tax with at least the intent of spending the money to provide their citizens with some benefit.
Reply
It's already been been mathematically demonstrated that the "employer-provided" measures in the bill aren't actually going to do anything more than raise operating costs without actually getting more workers health coverage.
So, in summary: so far this bill is likely to raise the cost of living, and effectively eliminate private health insurers.
...
Why was this a "good idea"?
Reply
The power to decide who lives and who dies.
Reply
But yeah, expect to see life expectancy drop drastically.
Reply
The medicare actuary has stated that this bill *tripples* the growth of medical spending.
www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/08/09/medicare-actuary-obamacare-will-triple-the-growth-rate-of-net-insurance-costs/
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Many people who are not fat imagine that it's easy to lose weight ("just stop eating.") It's not: in many cases obesity comes from hormonal imbalances which would make crash-dieting exceedingly dangerous; in some cases these could be the very same hormonal imbalances which lead to the person needing medical treatment.
What happens to an ill fat person at the mercy of a bureaucrat who's convinced that fat people are just "lazy gluttons" who choose to be fat? Remember, depending on the configuration of the bureaucracy, the patient might not have any other appeal -- or, depending on his condition -- he might die while waiting for his appeal to go through.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment