As the health care ruling shock wears off the GOP, they realize they have won politically if not in
62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;36571880]They don't like taxes because big government obamacare socialism. If there were higher taxes then AY-rab terrorist commies and we couldn't constitution, guns, holy bible.[/QUOTE]
Republican voters in a nutshell
[QUOTE=aydin690;36573624]Or you know, you yanks can stop blowing so much money on your military and provide every citizen with free health care.[/QUOTE]
psh that's crazy talk, killing people in the middle east is far more important than providing decent healthcare to your own citizens.
terrible
[QUOTE=Noble;36572596]
Obama's health care law is so bad that you almost have to wonder if this is a deliberate government sabotage of the health care industry, so that when the system collapses, they can just blame capitalism, greed, and the free market, and then propose that the solution is more government (likely a universal health care system).[/QUOTE]
i agree, making sense is overrated Noble! i personally believe that Obama's plan is to impregnate all American men with mexican assault drones in order to fund their invasion of micronesia, the realm of Zoth-Ommog!
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36573655]I'm not arguing for the absolute abolition of taxation, I'm arguing about being taxed for services I don't use. I'll help pay for the roads all day.
The constitution is a promise between the United States and it's citizens, and I'm sticking to my end of the bargain.[/QUOTE]
Well if you get injured and have to go to the hospital, the tax payer has to pay for the bill anyway.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36573655]I'm not arguing for the absolute abolition of taxation, I'm arguing about being taxed for services I don't use. I'll help pay for the roads all day.
The constitution is a promise between the United States and it's citizens, and I'm sticking to my end of the bargain.[/QUOTE]
"I'm going to collectively refer to the citizenry as if we are all part of a stronger bond, but then I'm going to talk about how I am the focus and my money shouldn't help anyone but me"
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36573655]I'm not arguing for the absolute abolition of taxation, I'm arguing about being taxed for services I don't use. I'll help pay for the roads all day.
The constitution is a promise between the United States and it's citizens, and I'm sticking to my end of the bargain.[/QUOTE]And they are sticking to theirs. You do not get to pick and choose these things.
The Democrats want more taxes? Stop the fucking presses!
When does this law go into effect and how soon do we got to pay for the healthcare?
[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;36573877]When does this law go into effect and how soon do we got to pay for the healthcare?[/QUOTE]
Here is the entire run up. The mandate itself though will not kick in until 2014.
[quote][B]Already in effect:[/B]
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money.
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy.
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths.
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for life insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending.
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick.
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information.
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
[B]8/1/2012[/B]
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
[B]1/1/2013[/B]
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%)
[B]1/1/2014[/B]
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
Insurer's now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need.
Make it so more poor people can get Medicare by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower-class, basically making it so poor people can get some medical coverage.
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
[B]1/1/2015[/B]
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat.
[B]1/1/2017[/B]
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPaACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPaACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
[B]2018[/B]
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
[B]2020[/B]
The elimination of the "Medicare gap."[/quote]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36573453]I don't know about you but I actually work for my money. I was doing fine without health insurance before but now I'm required by law to buy health insurance and that's not only unnecessary, but it's also unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Great. In Canada we pay a high level of taxes for healthcare whether or not we're healthy. And you know what? Nobody here minds because they know that it'll allow the poor, who aren't as lucky as you or I, to live healthy, safe lives.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;36572317]Yes, but the part that makes no sense whatsoever is how the Republican party plans to reduce taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time without cutting non-essential parts of the budget. Apparently money comes out of nowhere.[/QUOTE]
Bushonomics. :v:
[QUOTE=aydin690;36573624]Or you know, you yanks can stop blowing so much money on your military and provide every citizen with free health care.[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as free health care. You'll just pay for it in taxes. There's a big difference between something free and something that is taxpayer-funded, it's not just semantics. Your taxes will just skyrocket in order to pay for your neighbor's health care. That isn't "free" by any means. And I don't support the money we're spending on the military either. And I don't know if you actually read my post, but I suggested that even a fully universal, single-payer system would work better than the system under Obama's health care law.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36573744]i agree, making sense is overrated Noble! i personally believe that Obama's plan is to impregnate all American men with mexican assault drones in order to fund their invasion of micronesia, the realm of Zoth-Ommog![/QUOTE]
Obviously it was an exaggeration, though when you look at the false history they teach about the great depression and other crisis in schools (free markets fault! government intervention to the rescue!) it doesn't seem very far-fetched.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36573517]No it isn't and no it isn't. Healthcare is ultimately a necessity whether you believe it or not, otherwise you're basically going to be unable to get effective medical coverage because hospitals will only do the bare minimum so as to stabilize you in an emergency. Beyond that, they are under no obligation to treat you in any regard.[/quote]
Food is a necessity to live. Why don't we start paying for everyone's food too? How about universal clothing and housing?
[quote]Second, its constitutional until a later ruling by the Supreme Court decides otherwise or Congress can get both chambers to vote to override the ruling.[/quote]
No one's arguing that they don't have the power to collect taxes. The problem is the federal government argued explicitly that it was not a tax. However now that it has been ruled a tax, it can be challenged under various tax laws. Reconciliation would be one means of challenging it.
[quote]Second, the whole "I work for my money" argument is stupid and nonsensical. First of all, the money you make is collected from the combined efforts of countless people, and it come from other people to begin with in most cases, so its hardly your money anyway. [/QUOTE]
This argument again? There is no social contract. You (A) interact with B. You both enter a mutually beneficial transaction and it ends there. You don't owe a debt to C. You provided goods and services to someone and you received your money. You don't owe anything beyond that, not to the person you contracted with, and certainly not to society. You've already provided your end of the bargain by contributing goods and services. Society is already better off because of the goods and services that you brought into existence. And the wealth you earned came into existence as a result of you providing something valuable to someone else... i.e. selling your labor to an employer in the form of wages. Without you being there to bring the wealth into existence by providing something of value, the wealth would not exist. It's not society's money, it's the individual's who earned it.
[quote]Taxation is a necessity for every civilized society to function. You look roads? You like power? You like clean water? You like clean air? You like safe foods and drugs? You like some standard for education? Thanks taxes and government authority for making us a better place to live than Somalia.[/quote]
It's not a necessity for every civilized society to function. It's necessary for [b]government programs[/b] to function, not society. You like paying to invade other countries? You like spending billions for the war on drugs? You like having a percent of your income taken from you by threats of imprisonment? Thanks taxes and government authority..etc.
And Somalia isn't free market. You have powerful groups running around using violence to their own ends, they effectively have a monopoly on force (much like government usually does), the free market does not and cannot operate that way just by mere definition. There needs to be private businesses competing to provide better goods and services, otherwise it's not free market.
[QUOTE=Penultimate;36573155]So, I'm not understanding where you're getting this whole, "young people won't get health insurance!" idea from.
I'm young. I'm reasonably healthy. I'm currently covered by my parent's insurance, but if I wasn't, I would definitely get some. I can't speak for everyone, but neither can you.[/QUOTE]
I don't intend to speak for everyone, just providing an estimate of what I believe is going to happen. Premiums are going to go up as a result of guaranteed issue and community rating as I said in my earlier post. Currently insurance companies charge higher premiums to these people because there is a much higher risk of having to pay out. Since the government got involved and said they basically can't do this anymore, they'll just raise the rates for everyone to cover the costs. People who don't truly need the care may just decide to say fuck it, drop the coverage and save several thousands of dollars in exchange for just paying the "tax". If only sick people are on the system, it's headed for complete disaster (that's why the individual mandate "tax" was put in, to basically coerce healthy people into buying it).
[QUOTE=Noble;36575260]Obviously it was an exaggeration, though when you look at the false history they teach about the great depression and other crisis in schools (free markets fault! government intervention to the rescue!) it doesn't seem very far-fetched.[/QUOTE]
I stopped reading there.
Where the hell do you get your information? You seem to be wrong about absolutely everything.
Oh whatever, they harp on taxes regardless of whether or not the Democrats have actually introduced any.
Besides, between the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies, the only reason for anyone to actually pay this tax is if they're too stupid and stubborn to want health insurance.
The court said in its ruling that this healthcare plan was legal because Congress has the power to tax, that does not mean this is in fact a tax. It just falls under that category in legal terms.
It's an important distinction, the court only tries to explain the authority Congress has to pass such a law, it's not defining the intent or purpose of the law.
[QUOTE=Noble;36575260]There is no such thing as free health care. You'll just pay for it in taxes. There's a big difference between something free and something that is taxpayer-funded, it's not just semantics. Your taxes will just skyrocket in order to pay for your neighbor's health care. That isn't "free" by any means. And I don't support the money we're spending on the military either. And I don't know if you actually read my post, but I suggested that even a fully universal, single-payer system would work better than the system under Obama's health care law.[/QUOTE]
Yes, taxes will skyrocket. However, unless you're particularly rich, taxes would skyrocket to [I]less[/I] than you yourself pay for healthcare. If you're particularly rich, you'll still be benefiting by having healthier people with more money to buy the shit that pays your salary.
[QUOTE]Obviously it was an exaggeration, though when you look at the false history they teach about the great depression and other crisis in schools (free markets fault! government intervention to the rescue!) it doesn't seem very far-fetched.[/QUOTE]
History classes might gloss over details, or even be outright propaganda at times, but we don't all have the same history classes. Could you maybe point out what the truth is, and what the lies we're being fed are?
[QUOTE]Food is a necessity to live. Why don't we start paying for everyone's food too? How about universal clothing and housing?[/QUOTE]
That sounds pretty kick-ass. Personally, I like the idea of a basic living wage for everyone, unconditionally, coupled with higher tax margins for income.
[QUOTE]This argument again? There is no social contract.[/QUOTE]
I think you might actually be a robot. Please check that you are made of flesh and have a shared moral imperative with the rest of humanity, please.
[QUOTE]You (A) interact with B. You both enter a mutually beneficial transaction and it ends there. You don't owe a debt to C. You provided goods and services to someone and you received your money. You don't owe anything beyond that, not to the person you contracted with, and certainly not to society. You've already provided your end of the bargain by contributing goods and services. Society is already better off because of the goods and services that you brought into existence. And the wealth you earned came into existence as a result of you providing something valuable to someone else... i.e. selling your labor to an employer in the form of wages. Without you being there to bring the wealth into existence by providing something of value, the wealth would not exist. It's not society's money, it's the individual's who earned it.[/QUOTE]
Yep, definitely a financial robot, possibly an accounting computer. Are you sure you're a person whose sole existence [I]isn't[/I] about the collection of more funds to trade in extremely bland deals?
[QUOTE]It's not a necessity for every civilized society to function. It's necessary for [b]government programs[/b] to function, not society. You like paying to invade other countries? You like spending billions for the war on drugs? You like having a percent of your income taken from you by threats of imprisonment? Thanks taxes and government authority..etc. [/QUOTE]
Society relies on government programs. Many such government programs cannot be implemented by capitalism, due to the extreme investments necessary, and the lack of any feasible way of getting the money back. Who would setup something like the EPA? Who would pay for the highway system? We'd have to develop some sort of collective money pool we can draw from to fund these extremely expensive endeavors for the benefit of us all...
[QUOTE]And Somalia isn't free market. You have powerful groups running around using violence to their own ends, they effectively have a monopoly on force (much like government usually does), the free market does not and cannot operate that way just by mere definition. There needs to be private businesses competing to provide better goods and services, otherwise it's not free market.[/QUOTE]
Without some threat of force, you'll always have thug groups. That's one of the things governments do particularly well in advanced nations - be a relatively safe thug to have around to fight off the other thugs. They're not perfect, but I'll take a democratic thug to a greedy psychopath thug.
[QUOTE]I don't intend to speak for everyone, just providing an estimate of what I believe is going to happen. Premiums are going to go up as a result of guaranteed issue and community rating as I said in my earlier post. Currently insurance companies charge higher premiums to these people because there is a much higher risk of having to pay out. Since the government got involved and said they basically can't do this anymore, they'll just raise the rates for everyone to cover the costs.[/QUOTE]
Premiums are regulated by the bill. The amount of profit that can be made is capped at ~10-20% based on the size of the company. Over time, with the increased preventative care, the increased costs of having to care for the expensive patients should largely be compensated for. Also, for the time being, high-risk patients still are paying a higher premium. The other changes should mitigate the issues when the high-risk pool is merged with everyone else.
[QUOTE]People who don't truly need the care may just decide to say fuck it, drop the coverage and save several thousands of dollars in exchange for just paying the "tax". If only sick people are on the system, it's headed for complete disaster (that's why the individual mandate "tax" was put in, to basically coerce healthy people into buying it).[/QUOTE]
Yes, like they're coerced into paying for roads and police and fire departments and the FDA and all the other nice stuff we absolutely rely on for our day to day life and security. I don't see why this is a problem; we can't replace so many of the things we rely on with a free market without completely fucking up the lives of the poor.
[QUOTE=Noble;36572596]rather than buy ridiculously expensive health insurance[/QUOTE]
Wow really, because a bill designed to control costs and provide assistance for people unable to pay is not going to do that, at all?
The reason this law is unpopular is that nobody understands it fully.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36576619]I stopped reading there.
Where the hell do you get your information? You seem to be wrong about absolutely everything.[/QUOTE]
Erm, it's a whole separate topic but no, I'm not wrong. Please bring facts and arguments to the table if you're going to bash what I'm saying.
I don't want to go too far off topic, but as an example of what I'm talking about: it's often portrayed that Hoover sat around doing nothing and let the economy collapse, when in reality he was just as much of an interventionist as FDR was. The great depression was caused by government intervention, the federal reserve injecting money into the economy at artificially low interest rates to assist Britain's weak currency. This created a bubble in the stock market, and the federal reserve responded by choking the money supply. Constricting the money supply caused the currency to deflate and interest rates to skyrocket. This killed off investment (people weren't borrowing at these interest rates) and businesses had to cut back on production, therefore employment suffered greatly. Disaster ensued from there.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;36576895]Yes, taxes will skyrocket. However, unless you're particularly rich, taxes would skyrocket to [I]less[/I] than you yourself pay for healthcare. If you're particularly rich, you'll still be benefiting by having healthier people with more money to buy the shit that pays your salary.[/quote]
What if someone wants to skip health insurance, since they're young and healthy and the risk of needing expensive care is negligible, and pay zero for it instead (or buy low cost catastrophic insurance), using the money for something more beneficial to them? Their taxes went up to pay for other people who need care, while they receive virtually no benefit out of it.
[quote]That sounds pretty kick-ass. Personally, I like the idea of a basic living wage for everyone, unconditionally, coupled with higher tax margins for income.[/quote]
Yup. Can't go wrong with the government virtually living your life for you. Not like they'd ever abuse their powers or anything, governments never do that.
Personally I prefer freedom.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;36576895]Society relies on government programs. Many such government programs cannot be implemented by capitalism, due to the extreme investments necessary, and the lack of any feasible way of getting the money back. Who would setup something like the EPA? Who would pay for the highway system? We'd have to develop some sort of collective money pool we can draw from to fund these extremely expensive endeavors for the benefit of us all...[/quote]
It doesn't have to. The market has mechanisms built in to account for environmental issues, protection, transport, etc
[quote]Premiums are regulated by the bill. The amount of profit that can be made is capped at ~10-20% based on the size of the company. [/quote]
[url="http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/costs/value-for-premium/index.html"]The profits are regulated based on revenue from premiums[/url], so they'll have more wasteful spending to increase premiums so that they can make a higher profit out of them. The money that gets wasted on this inefficiency could have gone somewhere productive instead.
[quote]Over time, with the increased preventative care, the increased costs of having to care for the expensive patients should largely be compensated for. Also, for the time being, high-risk patients still are paying a higher premium. The other changes should mitigate the issues when the high-risk pool is merged with everyone else.[/quote]
Doubt it. The healthy, should they decide to pay these higher premiums for no extra benefit to themselves, will still be subsidizing the guy who has an unhealthy lifestyle and a long history of causing car accidents, etc.
[QUOTE=mac338;36571838]Since when is taxing a bad thing? Do republicans want an anarchic society out of Robocop or something? They've gone out of hand in the name of principles.[/QUOTE]
Because taxes are bad for a fragile economy?
[editline]1st July 2012[/editline]
Not to mention the individual mandate was written by lobbyists, but whatever.
[QUOTE=Dori;36573471]if it's unconstitutional why was it deemed constitutional
checkmate
[/QUOTE]
It [I]was[/I] unconstitutional until they realized it was going to be killed if they stuck with a fee. So to avoid this they switched to making it a tax.
[quote]The market has mechanisms built in to account for environmental issues,[/quote]
No it doesn't.
[quote]protection,[/quote]
Only if you're rich.
[quote]transport, etc[/quote]
Yeah, the free market did a REAL great job with the railroad systems. Oh wait, no it didn't.
[quote]Yup. Can't go wrong with the government virtually living your life for you. Not like they'd ever abuse their powers or anything, governments never do that.[/quote]
Can't go wrong with corporations controlling everything. Not like they'd ever abuse their powers or anything, corporations never do that. And hell, unlike the US government, which is a total dictatorship with no democratic process, corporate rule has elements of democracy, in that if you don't want to support a corporation, you don't have to buy their food / water / oil / whatever else is necessary for you to live. All that has to happen is for EVERYONE to stop supporting that corporation and it will die. And if that doesn't happen, other corporations can always spring up, because there's no such thing as a corporation maintaining a monopoly by controlling resources. That doesn't happen. Nope.
Corporate anarchy has much the same flaw as communism, in that it assumes that everyone will understand that what's best for everyone is what's best for themselves. The difference is, a great amount of people have to fail and be selfish, lazy, etc. for communism to fail, but it only takes one greedy asshole to ruin it for everyone with corporate anarchy.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36578869]No it doesn't.[/quote]
Sure it does. Dump shit on my land? I sue your ass. Pollute the air I have to breathe? Lawsuit.. etc
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36578869]Only if you're rich.[/quote]
Not necessarily. If a poor person lives on rented property, their landlord will want to use some of the rent money for police protection for their property. It's all theoretical of course and I don't ever see this system coming into existence, but it certainly could work.
[quote]Yeah, the free market did a REAL great job with the railroad systems. Oh wait, no it didn't.
Corporate anarchy has much the same flaw as communism, in that it assumes that everyone will understand that what's best for everyone is what's best for themselves. The difference is, a great amount of people have to fail and be selfish, lazy, etc. for communism to fail, but it only takes one greedy asshole to ruin it for everyone with corporate anarchy.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call it corporate anarchy. Corporations need governments to exist. They are established as "people" by the government. What I have in mind would just be a completely free market where businesses need to compete for profits, and no government intervenes and distorts the market. You simply need to provide better goods and services than the competitor. If you can't, then obviously what you are providing simply isn't valuable enough to other people compared to what your competitor can do. The government doesn't need to step in, the market will tend towards equilibrium on it's own.
Can you also point which railroad systems you're talking about? All the ones that come to mind are government created monopolies of the railroad industry.
[QUOTE=Noble;36579021]Sure it does. Dump shit on my land? I sue your ass. Pollute the air I have to breathe? Lawsuit.. etc[/QUOTE]
OK, so lawsuits still exist, so apparently the legal system still exists, and the judicial branch still exists. So at least if you're rich enough to afford a good lawyer, and to legally own your own land (and air, somehow) you're protected, even though poor people are fucked.
But wait, the judicial branch still exists, but there's no taxes. Who's going to pay the judges? And now there's no branch of government to make the laws either. What are they going to do if corporations find new loopholes in the legal systems?
[QUOTE=mac338;36571838]Since when is taxing a bad thing? Do republicans want an anarchic society out of Robocop or something? They've gone out of hand in the name of principles.[/QUOTE]
The thing is that the Dems and Obama pushed the bill hard and tried to win people over by specifically saying it is not a tax. Goes against Obama's promise of not raising taxes on the middle class.
Also, bills for raising revenue (taxes) must originate in the House. The bill, as it was passed, originated in the Senate.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36579158]OK, so lawsuits still exist, so apparently the legal system still exists, and the judicial branch still exists. So at least if you're rich enough to afford a good lawyer, and to legally own your own land (and air, somehow) you're protected, even though poor people are fucked.
But wait, the judicial branch still exists, but there's no taxes. Who's going to pay the judges? And now there's no branch of government to make the laws either. What are they going to do if corporations find new loopholes in the legal systems?[/QUOTE]
They're private courts who would arbitrate a dispute. There is a whole body of literature on this subject which goes into all the details of how this stuff would work, but for me to discuss it further here is just bringing this even more off topic.
[QUOTE=Ridge;36579281]The thing is that the Dems and Obama pushed the bill hard and tried to win people over by specifically saying it is not a tax. Goes against Obama's promise of not raising taxes on the middle class.
Also, bills for raising revenue (taxes) must originate in the House. The bill, as it was passed, originated in the Senate.[/QUOTE]
mind you the part tax part isn't actually implemented yet. Unless I misread. also also obama actually cut taxes for 95 percent of americans.
[quote]They're private courts who would arbitrate a dispute.[/quote]
Who would pay them? If just the people involved in the lawsuits would pay them, that would make it even less likely for the lower and middle class to have a chance, and depending on who paid them it would make corruption inevitable.
Your whole idealistic viewpoint of a privately run world has a billion holes, and would fuck over the non-rich like nothing else. You'd have to pay in order to do anything, and who ever would have the most money would always win. Under your system, the poor don't get ANYTHING, the middle class gets raped and extorted by the rich, and you act like the free market will magically make everyone do the right thing. Any time a flaw is brought up in this whole fantasy world of yours, you completely ignore it. What if you can't afford a lawyer? Corporations shit all over you. What if you can't afford to pay the fire department? You're fucked. If the corporations pay for the roads, they'll only pay for the roads where people with a lot of money live. Everyone else is fucked.
There is no arguing with you, because you ignore every single thing that is pointed out to be wrong with your privatized utopia. You're no less deluded than a Christian fundamentalist that believes the earth is 6000 years old.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36580387]Who would pay them? If just the people involved in the lawsuits would pay them, that would make it even less likely for the lower and middle class to have a chance, and depending on who paid them it would make corruption inevitable.
Your whole idealistic viewpoint of a privately run world has a billion holes, and would fuck over the non-rich like nothing else. You'd have to pay in order to do anything, and who ever would have the most money would always win. Under your system, the poor don't get ANYTHING, the middle class gets raped and extorted by the rich, and you act like the free market will magically make everyone do the right thing. Any time a flaw is brought up in this whole fantasy world of yours, you completely ignore it. What if you can't afford a lawyer? Corporations shit all over you. What if you can't afford to pay the fire department? You're fucked. If the corporations pay for the roads, they'll only pay for the roads where people with a lot of money live. Everyone else is fucked.
[/QUOTE]
If you can't afford a lawyer you could just represent yourself in court. All you need to do is prove is that an aggressor violated your rights. There wouldn't be any complicated legal code to follow, just the non aggression principle. Charitable organizations could provide money for a lawyer to defend people who are incapable of defending themselves (mentally handicapped, etc).
As far as the roads and "the poor get nothing", there's plenty of money to be made in selling things to low income people, look at Walmart for a successful example of this. Wherever there is demand for something (i.e. transportation) and profit to be made, the market will fill that demand.
Also, I never said the system is flawless, just that I think it could do a better job than the current system.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.