An alternative to Obamacare, starting with advice from Whole Foods

This has what to do with the topic?

 

If you read my previous posts, you will note that I asked some compare/contrast questions regarding mandated patronage of corporate America and tax supported government programs.

Do you think it is appropriate for govt to mandate the individual to patronize a particular sector of private business?

 

Your question is designed to invoke a desired response. The reality here is that making it mandatory for someone to follow a LAW, while it may require the patronage of a private enterprise, does not specifically make it a requirement.

Saying that the government forcing one to purchase insurance, whatever it is which results in a private business benefiting is no different than making a helmet law which requires I buy a helmet from a private business. Or requiring that kids be in special car seats which again requires I purchase a car seat from a private business.

Your contention is that government is mandating that people patronize private business when this is not the desire or expected result. Its purely happenstance.

The problem as I see it is you question is inherently flawed. There is no way to answer it.

Something tells me you'd be a good pollster.

 

Does your particular brand of libertarianism accept these impositions on your freedom as just and reasonable, or are they an example of govt getting in your way?

Oh, and thanks for the negative rep over in the SEO forum on the totally unrelated thread - you know, the one you weren't even contributing to - and your comment that accompanied it, "Enjoy it, you earned it - Mia".

Amazing what happens when we shine a light on things, isn't it?

 

I personally have enjoyed your contributions, Willy. I think there's room for respectful views to be debated here, and I would hope that for most folks, that would mean those of us with divergent views can sit down together and chew the fat. Unfortunately, that idea hasn't reached a certain kind of mind. Also unfortunate, to be followed to other forums and sites is something I'm familiar with (actually, posing as yours truly) as well - sorry this happened to you.

I do see the logic of your comparison here, and I think it merits serious reflection.

 

You mistake me for someone else, or you do not understand the definition of a libertarian.

I'm a conservative if you want to use labels. I believe the federal government has one responsibility; To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. That and nothing else.

All I ask is that they do that and get out of my way.

Rep crybabies get Red Rep FYI...

 

Mia, you have once again refused to answer the question I asked. Does your particular brand of conservatism (you really should look at the definition of libertarian some time) accept the limitations on your freedoms that you outlined?

I assume you refer to this constitution - "[in order to] establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

BTW, I did not complain about rep. I extended my thanks, and gave credit where it was due. It would be impossible to reveal personal character without little gifts like you provided

 

Your question is not answerable.

I never like to assume.

Get on line... You're not the only one to accuse me of something I did not do.

 

Not answerable???

You outlined a number of places where govt regulations and/or legislation require you to take certain actions. Are those acceptable intrusions on your freedom?

Yes or no would work for me.

Since I shouldn't assume, I will ask...

Do you know where those words are from? If so, where?

Does this mean we have a Mia impersonator? Circumstantial evidence would suggest otherwise, but hey, I'm open minded.

 

I recognize that we are NOT a "true democracy", but rather a "Representative Republic". That said, I am willing to give up some freedom in exchange for "order". A true democracy would be complete chaos.

In other words, I, like others that vote in the US choose to elect officials that we believe would best represent our interests. We entrust them to uphold current law, and make new law if and when warranted. If we do not like what they do, we put someone else in that we would hope would do our will better.

I do not consider this form of government an "intrusion on my freedoms". What I DO consider to be an intrusion of my freedoms is a government that seeks NOT to do the will of the people but rather does whatever the hell it wants. Right now, that's what we have in place.

I think the problem in your line of questioning and understanding of your own questioning and my answers is that you may not realize that the US is NOT a "Democracy". If it was, your questions might be a bit more apropos.

If I don't take the bait once junior, what makes you think I'm going to do it now?

No, what it means is we have a bunch of rep whiners. I do believe that bitching about rep is an automatic infraction. Ask one of the mods to give you a couple. This is two times you've broken that rule.

Have a nice weekend.

 

This, of course, raises the next question. What is "some freedom"?

Do you accept a govt mandate that you purchase automobile insurance - to include uninsured motorist coverage - to be a reasonable imposition on your freedom?

By extension, would you accept a govt mandate that you carry health insurance, as they are doing in Massachussetts? Or, that as an employer you provide health insurance to your employees?

I hope I haven't asked too many questions in one post. I know it can be confusing.

We will ignore the fact that you apparently do not recognize the preamble of our constitution.

I suppose that we can also ignore the negative rep provided by someone identifying themselves as Mia, although I am tempted to provide screen shots so that perhaps you can help to identify the Mia imposter. It certainly can not be good for your 'real world' rep to have someone impersonating you in that way. I mean, anyone doing due diligence before signing up for a hosting plan might be taken aback if they were exposed to false information about how you conduct yourself in public forums. If I were in your shoes I think it would worry me.

 

I think that goes without saying. "Some Freedom?"; Law and Order. Without both, we have "total freedom" and chaos.

Here we go again with auto insurance. I thought we go infractions for continually taking posts OFF TOPIC!!!!

I would accept whatever the people by way of their representation decide. Either way, you can still choose to have it, or not just as easily as you can choose to follow law or not.

Frankly, I don't really think Massachusetts should be the model for the US. Ultimately, decisions about insurance will likely and should likely come down to a state wide, not a federal mandate.

In the end, mandating coverage will do nothing to solve the root problem, which is "cost", which is dictated almost solely by lawsuits and drug deals made by the very people trying to solve the problem...

No, you've just asked the same question over and over. What's confusing is why you cannot accept simple answers.

I'm not certain how you came to that conclusion when it was I that reminded you of it.

Keep it up, and I WILL spend every waking hour red repping you. Like I said, whine about rep, and you are going to get a lot of negative rep from a lot of people here.

You act as if it really means something. No one cares that you got negative rep, and no one cares who gave it to you. What people do not like here is people that whine about it. In fact, its against the rules here to bitch about it. I'd suggest dropping it, or you are going to find a lot more of it.

 

As I stated before, I am not complaining.

It was a gift. It reflects on he who gave far more than those that received.

If, however, it was not given by you (you did state, " You're not the only one to accuse me of something I did not do.") then we have an imposter running around.

That is a problem worthy of some attention I would think.

 

I would disagree. Cost is most definitely tied to profit, just as in any other business.

Therefore, I would suggest that one look to who stands to profit the most under the current system.

Last year the CEO of the 2nd largest healthcare company, United Healthcare, pulled a salary of $3.2 million, but took $766,000,000 (yes million) in stock options for a total compensation package of $102,000 an hour.

I am not aware of any law firm turning those kinds of profits. Are you?

 

Freedom is nothing but a choice, isn't it? That regardless of where one resides, or under what conditions.

But, more on topic...

If left to the people, it would appear that a strong majority support health care reform, and a sizeable majority support "major" health care reform.

This, even in the face of scare mongering attempting to turn the tide. From Tim Magazine:

"At the same time, survey respondents remain dissatisfied with the current state of health-care delivery and supportive of reform in principle. Forty-six percent of respondents said it was "very important" that Congress and the President pass major health reform in the next few months, and an additional 23% said it was "somewhat important." Only 28% found the immediate effort either not very or not at all important. In a separate question, more Americans said it would be better to pass "major reform" to health care (55%) rather than "minor adjustments" (43%). "

So, do you support whatever Congress decides, or do you support what the citizens of our fine Democracy want? They could be very, very different things if history is any guide.

 

Your response when I quoted the Preamble was, "I never like to assume."

When I asked if you knew where those words were from you responded, "If I don't take the bait once junior, what makes you think I'm going to do it now? "

Neither response gave me confidence that you recognized them.

 

No, its a privilege. Some "choose" to enjoy it, some take it for granted, and still others seek to destroy it.

Its a little late for that. You've taken this way off topic already.

I'd suggest looking up the word "majority", then buy a calculator.

Sure, more Americans might like some type of "major reform". What the majority do not want is the 'reform' being brokered on one side of the isle.

I'd be willing to be more Americans would accept an alternative form that consisted of NO government control, no government run health care, tort reform, and ceilings on costs associated with drugs and other medical costs.

Do that, and no "government assistance" is necessary. Lastly, knock off the 10+ million illegals that are currently getting assistance while we're at it too.

No, I support what I hired my representative to do for me. If they do not do it, I simply find someone else who will and vote for them next time.

You've not quite figured out what type of government we have in the US just yet have you kid. It's not a democracy. Its a Representative Republic. Once you figure that out I think you'll be in a far better position to understand what I've been saying.

Don't feel bad though. Most American's have not got a clue what kind of government we have in place. Trust that you are not alone.

 

Boy, ain't that the truth.

I like to think of my representatives as being elected, but truth be known many are probably more accurately considered to be "hired".

From the Christian Science Monitor - "Almost every US lawmaker takes big money aimed at helping private interests win favorable government action. If they stash the cash for themselves, it's illegal. If they use it to get reelected, keep their job, and help the private interests, it's generally legal. "

 

Willy I like to use the word "hired" with regard to elected officials. It helps remind me and them that they can be FIRED!!!

Freedom of the press belongs to those that own one.

 

Again, I must disagree.

Freedom is a choice, one never looses the freedom to choose, and every choice made is a reflection of one's freedom.

If this sounds eerily similar to your earlier statements about freedom and choice (as in, they chose not to seek medical attention), then perhaps it is - at least in as much as freedom is concerned.

Freedom is never a privilege. It is a burden - a burden because once one realizes their inherent freedom they lose the comfort to be found in excuses. Absolute freedom, which is inherent in human existence, carries with it absolute responsibility.

To see freedom as a privilege that can be destroyed is to live in a delusion. It is a mark of shallow thinking and a sign of lack of discernment.

How can one be free while still in the bondage of such misconceptions?

In as much as I am free to choose I am responsible for the consequences my my choice(s) on myself, my fellow man, and the wrold/universe that we share. And choices, like ripples from a stone thrown in a pond, will endure and spread far beyond their immediate impact.