Congratulations America

[Juska]

Why isn't everyone already covered in the first place? (Well they are, but not to the extent you'd like) There are two possibilities:

People who want to force giving for health care are currently not giving of their money themselves. And are therefore hypocrites, you cannot force someone to do something for the good of his fellow man if you currently are failing to obey by your own rules yourself.

Or there are less people in this country that really want to help their fellows than it would seem and this bill has gained support through some other form of coercion than wanting to help your neighbor or for some other end.

[Shadow]

Juska, last stat I hear put the average health care cost per year per person in th0 2000 range for middle ages, and over 10000 for retirees and small infants. Given your population, it is not feasible for that cost to be covered by donations, no matter how altruistic your population is. And given that the typical argument against UHC is "I don't want to pay for some other lazy bum's insurance", I really don't see how you can possible believe that that sort of system could work.

People just aren't that generous, in general. There are exceptions, but not enough to cover those who are currently not. If there were, then there would be no need for reform.

[Juska]

So you are saying that people who are in support of UHC are not in support of giving the same amount freely?

[Shadow]

No I am saying that there are not enough people willing to donate enough money to support those who are uninsured, period. Nothing to do with being for or against UHC.

If there were, do you not thing they would already be doing it?

I don't understand how you can possible believe that such a system would work.

[Juska]

The people who want to help their neighbors are already helping their neighbors. The people who want to take care of the needy are already taking care of the needy.

The people who are in support of UHC are not the same people who are supporting the needy, because if they already were there wouldn't even be a need for UHC (as you've said) . Therefore, there is some agenda besides simple goodwill for your fellow man that causes people to support UHC type of legislature.

[Shadow]

The people who want to help their neighbors are already helping their neighbors

And clearly it isn't enough, because there are still people uninsured and uncovered, which leads to me believe that a system based on charity alone is going to fall far short of the necessary funding.

I get the impression that you believe that a fully charity funded insurance program would be viable. Given that it is not working now, how can you say that?

The people who are in support of UHC are not the same people who are supporting the needy,

Bull, as well as a sweeping generalization.

There are likely charitable people on both sides of the arguement - but I would argue that a lot of the people who are helping see that what they are doing is not and cannot be enough, and are therefore in support of UHC in order to find a way to obtain enough support.

Therefore, there is some agenda besides simple goodwill for your fellow man that causes people to support UHC type of legislature.

Sure. There are also reasons besides good will for your fellow man for opposing it (are there reasons for opposing it that are related to good will? I can't think of any off the top of my head ^_^). Everyone has their own agenda, whatever that may be, and not all of them are about the good of your fellow man. What's your point?

[Juska]

Bull, as well as a sweeping generalization.

There are likely charitable people on both sides of the arguement - but I would argue that a lot of the people who are helping see that what they are doing is not and cannot be enough, and are therefore in support of UHC in order to find a way to obtain enough support.


Ok, yes it is a generalization that everyone in support of the UHC is not in support of the needy. It is also a generalization that everyone in support of the needy is in support of UHC.

The argument that UHC is good for mankind should be made by the some of the people who are in support of the needy. If there are some people who are not in support of the needy, but are in support of UHC that means that there is another agenda beyond simply helping your fellow man. And if the half of the U.S. population is in support of the needy, then they should be actively supporting the needy already, plus everyone who are in support of the needy and who doesn't support UHC. Obviously everyone is not supporting the needy who say they want to be.


Sure. There are also reasons besides good will for your fellow man for opposing it (are there reasons for opposing it that are related to good will? I can't think of any off the top of my head ^_^). Everyone has their own agenda, whatever that may be, and not all of them are about the good of your fellow man. What's your point?

My point is that you cannot use people deserve UHC because it is a right of man as the sole argument for wanting UHC, because there are more reasons behind it and if everyone in support of UHC was in support of the needy (or the right for every man to have health care) then there would already be money enough to support the needy and hence no need for UHC.


I'm not opposed to a monopolistic approach to health insurance, I actually think a monopolistic system would produce much better results or perhaps a controlled oligarchic system. What I am opposed to is forcing people to be a part of a monopolistic system who do not want to be part of it. I'm also opposed to that monopolistic system being directly controlled by the government who could use it for other ends besides to providing of health insurance.

[Shadow]

Ok, yes it is a generalization that everyone in support of the UHC is not in support of the needy. It is also a generalization that everyone in support of the needy is in support of UHC.

I never said that, simply that those who are supporting those in need can see that what they are doing is not enough, and that that would tend to bias them toward support. Certainly not all think so.

If there are some people who are not in support of the needy, but are in support of UHC that means that there is another agenda beyond simply helping your fellow man.

Or they are needy themselves? And can't afford to help others? Let alone health care...

Or they think that the government could make more regulated and directed use of the money they would be putting into health care though UHC than the local charity? Not everyone believes that governments are incompetent..

Etc etc,,, there are plenty of reasons to support UHC but not be actively helping without having some evil agenda on the side. What agenda do you keep talking about anyway? And why is having an agenda besides the good of others necessarily a bad thing?

My point is that you cannot use people deserve UHC because it is a right of man as the sole argument for wanting UHC, because there are more reasons behind it

what?

and if everyone in support of UHC was in support of the needy (or the right for every man to have health care) then there would already be money enough to support the needy and hence no need for UHC.

But clearly there is need for UHC because this is not happening.

What I am opposed to is forcing people to be a part of a monopolistic system who do not want to be part of it

Such a system can only work if everyone funds it. You can't have it both ways.

by the government who could use it for other ends besides to providing of health insurance.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. What would the government use this money for? If the proper checks and balances and monitoring are put in place, fraud and such would be picked up quickly. Especially considering that half of the american public will be watching like a hawk for the first sign of inconsistency to try to pull it down.

[Juska]

Let me rephrase myself.

Charity is not working because people are not giving enough.

In order for charity to work a change needs to occur. This change needs to take place within the individual. A change in the individuals spirit of giving, a change in the individual's soul.

The entire business of bringing up goodwill toward man was to show that there is a discrepancy between wanting goodwill for man and wanting UHC, if all UHC entailed was supporting the goodwill of man then I would hope everyone would be behind it, but not everyone is behind it and that means there is more to it than just helping people.

The how to help people is where the problem lies.

I believe the change needs to take place in the individuals throughout the nation and not through the government of the nation.

Governments must be kept limited because they are inefficient, always seeking to gain more power, and once empowered exponentially harder to weaken. A powerful government is a government that can hurt it's citizens, something I believe should be avoided at all costs. Some government is necessary, too much is harmful.

A monopolistic system can work without force and has to work without force, because there must be something to keep the monopoly honest. In this case the majority will participate because it chooses to participate, because theoretically a health insurance monopoly will not need to waste money on advertising or other costs that required in a competitive system and should not seek to make a profit, and so it can charge lower cost for the same quality.

By not forcing everyone to participate it makes sure that the monopoly seeks to keep costs low and quality high or it will cease to function. If you force everyone into the monopoly then it doesn't need to keep costs low or quality high, it can what ever it wants because nothing threatens it.

A monopoly on health insurance, not a monopoly on health care mind you.

There are checks and balances inherent in the system yes, and people should be watching to make sure the system does not go wrong. There is currently no right by the government to issue a mandate taxing me for being alive, I am trying to uphold the checks and balances in the current system. If those cannot even be rightfully upheld now, then how likely is it that will be upheld in the next case? Or the one after that? Or the one after that?

What is the hidden agenda of UHC? The hidden agenda is bigger government, redistribution of wealth, and the creation of a class of citizens dependent on the state for existence and thereby tied to the state and will keep it in power.

[Shadow]

Charity is not working because people are not giving enough.

Charity won't work because those that don't give aren't likely to start. A lot of the opposition to UHC comes from the elites of society who stand to lose money if the bill passes. These people generally oppose it for monetary reasons, and are not likely to give a similar amount of their own free will. The majority of the wealth is held my a minority of people, and in order to get enough donations for this to work, they are the ones that would need to donate the majority. They will not do this.

UHC would be in part a redistribution of wealth from the top down, which is what any society needs in order for true equality to be possible.

This change needs to take place within the individual. A change in the individuals spirit of giving, a change in the individual's soul.

Sure, but it will never happen. Not on the scale you would require to fund health care on donations. Can you point out a time in recorded history where such a change actually happened on this sort of scale? (And I mean verifiable history, not a bible story).

The entire business of bringing up goodwill toward man was to show that there is a discrepancy between wanting goodwill for man and wanting UHC, if all UHC entailed was supporting the goodwill of man then I would hope everyone would be behind it, but not everyone is behind it and that means there is more to it than just helping people.

It is not black and white Juska. There is no such thing as unanimity in a 300 million person multicultural society, but that does not mean that the divide is along the lines of people who want to help their fellow man and those who don't.

I believe the change needs to take place in the individuals throughout the nation and not through the government of the nation.

But it won't, so the government is the next best thing.

A monopolistic system can work without force and has to work without force, because there must be something to keep the monopoly honest. In this case the majority will participate because it chooses to participate, because theoretically a health insurance monopoly will not need to waste money on advertising or other costs that required in a competitive system and should not seek to make a profit, and so it can charge lower cost for the same quality.

The thing keeping this one honest is the fact that governments are non-profit organizations. And yes, there might be corruption at some level, but that is the job of the voting public to police. It is certainly harder to defreud a government and get away with it then it is to take from a charity.

By not forcing everyone to participate it makes sure that the monopoly seeks to keep costs low and quality high or it will cease to function. If you force everyone into the monopoly then it doesn't need to keep costs low or quality high, it can what ever it wants because nothing threatens it.

Now that is a good argument! Finally, we are moving away from this charity stuff...

On the other hand, if you do not force everyone to participate, you will not get the participation of the minority with the majority of the wealth, and the funding from the minority who need this would not be enough to keep it afloat. So it is all or nothing. The quality checks will have to be put in the hands of voters.

There are checks and balances inherent in the system yes, and people should be watching to make sure the system does not go wrong. There is currently no right by the government to issue a mandate taxing me for being alive, I am trying to uphold the checks and balances in the current system. If those cannot even be rightfully upheld now, then how likely is it that will be upheld in the next case? Or the one after that? Or the one after that?

You are not being txed fo being alive, you are being taxed to pay for health care. In the one case, you get nothing, in the other, you get health care covered by the government. Don't twist this into evil government wants you money - it isn't. UHC simply makes health insurance accesssible to those who cannot afford it otherwise.

What is the hidden agenda of UHC? The hidden agenda is bigger government, redistribution of wealth, and the creation of a class of citizens dependent on the state for existence and thereby tied to the state and will keep it in power.

bigger givernment? I suppose it will be, slightly. But not to the extent that you think. Canadian government is not especially large, though it is larger than yours in the sense that you mean. I don't see this as a problem.

redistribution of wealth: I think this is necessary, and a benefit to the system.

and the creation of a class of citizens dependent on the state for existence and thereby tied to the state and will keep it in power.

Ha! Exaggerate much? This class you speak of is existing currently without health care, so they will not be dependent on the state in the future, just better off. If they were going to be dependent on the state for existence in the new system, they would not be able to exist now. And you -want- your state kept in power, Juska. If the US government lost its power, your country would be in one [haties] of a lot of trouble ^_^

[Juska]

You are not being taxed for being alive, you are being taxed to pay for health care. In the one case, you get nothing, in the other, you get health care covered by the government. Don't twist this into evil government wants you money - it isn't. UHC simply makes health insurance accesssible to those who cannot afford it otherwise.

Wrong Shadow, so very wrong.

In both cases I get nothing.

In one case something is taken from me.

I will not be covered by Government health insurance, because I will make more money per year than allotted by the law. We have already been over this.

In order to get free health insurance you need to make less than $15,000 a year, in order to get any subsidy you need to make less than $44,000 a year. If I wasn't in school I'd be making over over $15,000 a year without a degree. Once I have my degree and enter the workforce officially I for see no time in which I will be making any less than $30,000 a year.

This plan doesn't even provide insurance, all it does it mandate that people have it.

Look, I'd dislike a system in which everyone was taxed to provide insurance than everyone could take part in if they chose, but that would be far better than this thing that has been passed.

This bill forces me to buy health insurance and if I don't buy it I get taxed.

Let's say I decide to become self-employed 5 years from now, I'm doing reasonably well and can bring home $50,000 in income. If I choose to not buy health insurance I'll get taxed $1,250 on my income and I still won't be able to go into a hospital or doctor's office and say I'm covered through government insurance. Because I will not be eligible because I make too much money.

I don't agree with any system in which I'm forced to do anything, but at least if the proposed system took my money and gave me something I could some merit for it, but it doesn't.

bigger goivernment? I suppose it will be, slightly. But not to the extent that you think. Canadian government is not especially large, though it is larger than yours in the sense that you mean. I don't see this as a problem.

redistribution of wealth: I think this is necessary, and a benefit to the system.

This bill if upheld will give the U.S. Government the power to tax an individual for doing nothing else but being alive. Once again I could understand taxing income and then using those taxes to provide health insurance, that's what is already happening through state run low-income health insurance plans. But this doesn't do that, it creates a new penalty tax based upon nothing but being alive and not having health insurance.

Redistribution of wealth does not solve the problem of poverty, redistribution of capital, namely property (ie. land). Is the way in which poverty should be combated.

Sure, but it will never happen. Not on the scale you would require to fund health care on donations. Can you point out a time in recorded history where such a change actually happened on this sort of scale? (And I mean verifiable history, not a bible story).

Nothing in the Bible has ever been historically refuted. In fact a large part of it is evidenced through historical records.

There are many instances of mass individual change. The Reformation for instance, or The Renaissance or The Enlightenment.

Mass individual change in the exact way I am hoping right now? Perhaps not, but there are plenty of examples of good men doing good things throughout history on the small scale. Read the story of the beginnings of the Guinness Brewery for example of one or Andrew Carnegie. 

Can you show me verifiable history in which government has freely reduced it's power? Or please show me one instance where great terror has been perpetrated without the strength of the state to support it, with the exception of anarchy which is just as terrible as a powerful state. (I can think of two with state support: The Holocaust and The Horror of the Soviet Union.)

The thing keeping this one honest is the fact that governments are non-profit organizations. And yes, there might be corruption at some level, but that is the job of the voting public to police. It is certainly harder to defraud a government and get away with it then it is to take from a charity.

The voting public is losing it's power to police the government and if this bill stands it will just increase that loss of power. The approval rating of Congress averages 30% and yet the same politicians are elected over and over again because of corruption. The government may theoretically be a non-profit organization, but it what it doesn't profit from monetarily it profits from in the form of power, power wielded by those in high positions within it and that is where our money goes to, it is used to keep and expand those people's power.

On the other hand, if you do not force everyone to participate, you will not get the participation of the minority with the majority of the wealth, and the funding from the minority who need this would not be enough to keep it afloat. So it is all or nothing. The quality checks will have to be put in the hands of voters.

It is possible to get the minority to participate if you make it in a way that benefits them, a monopoly could preform the same services of the best insurance company today and do it cheaper and thereby gain the support of even the most wealthy.

Ha! Exaggerate much? This class you speak of is existing currently without health care, so they will not be dependent on the state in the future, just better off. If they were going to be dependent on the state for existence in the new system, they would not be able to exist now. And you -want- your state kept in power, Juska. If the US government lost its power, your country would be in one [haties] of a lot of trouble ^_^

They exist now, but they are not tied as strongly to the state as they will be with the creation of the new health care system. The dependency class still has the power to advance to a level where it is not dependent upon the government, the more and more power given to the government the less and less likely it is that it will allow the members of the dependency class to progress, because that will weaken it's power.

I want my state in power, I want my federal government weakened. I don't want it destroyed, but it needs to be weakened. The government must fear the people and for that to happen the people cannot be reliant upon the government.

[Shadow]

Ah, you're right on the first part - I had forgotten the silly way in which it was being set up. I have been basing my thoughts on what I know of Canadian and Brittish health care. You're right, the bill that is being passed is a mockery of UHC. But it is that way as a result of the compromises that needed to be made in order to pass it at all, so you have only yourselves to blame for that. It's what happens when both sides go for all or nothing but neither is powerful enough to pull it off - you get a warped piece of crap as a result.

The bill that is being passes in the US is not ideal. Hopefully, and likely, reforms will be made as time goes on that will bring it up to par with systems elsewhere in the world.

Redistribution of wealth does not solve the problem of poverty, redistribution of capital, namely property (ie. land). Is the way in which poverty should be combated.

Money, capital, wealth, it all has common roots.

Nothing in the Bible has ever been historically refuted. In fact a large part of it is evidenced through historical records.

Let's not get into this. What I meant was that I wanted an example from recent history for which most of the details are still known.

There are many instances of mass individual change. The Reformation for instance, or The Renaissance or The Enlightenment.

These involve shifts in the thought processes of individuals as a result of new information. I don't think the situation is nearly the same here - there is no catalyst.

Read the story of the beginnings of the Guinness Brewery for example of one or Andrew Carnegie.

Inspiring to be sure, but on a tiny scale compared to what you are taling about.

The voting public is losing it's power to police the government and if this bill stands it will just increase that loss of power.

How is that?

The approval rating of Congress averages 30% and yet the same politicians are elected over and over again because of corruption.

Bush for example ^_^

Lol, but seriously, I don't really think that this is related. Your voting system sucks as well as your health care system, but god help anyone trying to reform either.

It is possible to get the minority to participate if you make it in a way that benefits them, a monopoly could preform the same services of the best insurance company today and do it cheaper and thereby gain the support of even the most wealthy.

Are you suggesitng a private monopoly? Because that is a terrible idea. Private monopolies do nothing cheaply. It needs to be a public monopoly, or a free market. You've tried the free market thing, it sucks. Where to next?

They exist now, but they are not tied as strongly to the state as they will be with the creation of the new health care system.

Why? They are paying the same, but now they get health care. They are no more dependent, they just get a little bonus.

The dependency class still has the power to advance to a level where it is not dependent upon the government, the more and more power given to the government the less and less likely it is that it will allow the members of the dependency class to progress, because that will weaken it's power.

If that dependency class is not being taxed any more than it is now, but it no longer has to worry about losing homes to pay medical bills, that will INCREASE their ability to get ahead.

I want my state in power, I want my federal government weakened. I don't want it destroyed, but it needs to be weakened. The government must fear the people and for that to happen the people cannot be reliant upon the government.

Fair enough, but health care is something that I think the federal governemtn should be in charge of. There are many other areas where the federal governemtn could stand to have its power weakened, but I don't think that this is one of them.

[Juska]

Money, capital, wealth, it all has common roots.  

Exactly, they all have common roots. The root of all money/capital/wealth is land. Land is what needs a redistribution.

Let's not get into this. What I meant was that I wanted an example from recent history for which most of the details are still known.

If you don't want to discuss the Bible then don't bring it up Shadow.

These involve shifts in the thought processes of individuals as a result of new information. I don't think the situation is nearly the same here - there is no catalyst.

Good point, a catalyst is lacking. Hopefully one is found quickly. If people were putting their efforts into changing individuals instead of changing government I'm sure one would be found much sooner.

Inspiring to be sure, but on a tiny scale compared to what you are taling about.

Each of those were done by one man, multiply it by 1,000 or 10,000 or a million. Even a million is a fraction of the U.S. population.

How is that?

Because the government is growing more and more powerful, as it's power grows the power of the people and of the people to police the government diminishes.

Lol, but seriously, I don't really think that this is related. Your voting system sucks as well as your health care system, but god help anyone trying to reform either.

Constant re-election of poorly preforming officials has it's roots in corruption, namely in campaign financing, which is the major reason incumbents that get poor approval ratings beat good competitors, they have all the money.

I'm assuming your referring to the use of the electoral college instead of just popular vote in Presidential elections when saying that our voting system sucks. The electoral college is important because of how federalism works, the states are supposed to have more power than they currently do and the federal government should have less power. If the federal government keeps growing eventually the electoral college will be done away with.

Are you suggesitng a private monopoly? Because that is a terrible idea. Private monopolies do nothing cheaply. It needs to be a public monopoly, or a free market. You've tried the free market thing, it sucks. Where to next?

Private monopolies that must operate under specific rules, which are enforced by the public is preferable to a public monopoly. There are many restrictions on the current "free" market of insurance which if lifted could do much to make the market freer, for instance not being able to buy insurance across state lines and the expense of insurance not bought through your company or the fact that insurance is sold to companies and then the employees lack individual choice in coverage. The new insurance bazaar system, which addresses those very problems,  may be the only decent part of the current bill.

Why? They are paying the same, but now they get health care. They are no more dependent, they just get a little bonus.

Exactly, they now get more without paying more. Which means they now have even more to lose in exchange for progressing out of their dependency state. Now as their income increases they lose another benefit, making it even less likely that they will choose to make more money. The majority of mankind will do nothing and get a little bit free than work hard and only see a little benefit, and honestly you'll need to almost triple your income from dependency to independence to see large differences, and during the period where you no longer fit into state programs because of income level and yet you can't actually make enough money to purchase everything you now lack your standard of living decreases. Making it less likely for you to try to improve yourself. Furthering the chances people choose not to progress, if there were no welfare programs then progression would be driven by survival (I'm not advocating elimination of every social welfare program I'm just stating a fact here.)

If that dependency class is not being taxed any more than it is now, but it no longer has to worry about losing homes to pay medical bills, that will INCREASE their ability to get ahead.

How many people who make less than $15,000 a year own their own home in America do you think? They weren't worried about losing a home they didn't own, but now they have health care and now it's all the more likely the government will give them their own home next, so why work for it?

Fair enough, but health care is something that I think the federal government should be in charge of. There are many other areas where the federal government could stand to have its power weakened, but I don't think that this is one of them.

I'm interested to hear what parts of the federal government could use getting weakened in your opinion.

[Shadow]

Exactly, they all have common roots. The root of all money/capital/wealth is land. Land is what needs a redistribution.

What I was saying is that it hardly matters which one gets moved around, it all ends up being equal in the end. Land is very hard to redistribute, so money is the next best thing.

Good point, a catalyst is lacking. Hopefully one is found quickly. If people were putting their efforts into changing individuals instead of changing government I'm sure one would be found much sooner.

What would people need to do in order to change individuals on that scale? We are talking about a mass consciousness shift in 300 million people. Stuff like that can't be lobbied for ^_^

Each of those were done by one man, multiply it by 1,000 or 10,000 or a million. Even a million is a fraction of the U.S. population.

You would be hard pressed to find 1000 of those stories happening in a small time span without the shift talked about above. A million is a fraction, sure, but not enough to fund any sort of health care inititative.

Constant re-election of poorly preforming officials has it's roots in corruption, namely in campaign financing, which is the major reason incumbents that get poor approval ratings beat good competitors, they have all the money.

I'm assuming your referring to the use of the electoral college instead of just popular vote in Presidential elections when saying that our voting system sucks. The electoral college is important because of how federalism works, the states are supposed to have more power than they currently do and the federal government should have less power. If the federal government keeps growing eventually the electoral college will be done away with.

I don't see how giving away your votes to a handful of highly placed people constitues the states having more power. If anything that is a deferral of power. Concentrating voting power like that vastly increases the chances of corruption, since you only need to get to a few 10's of people in order to make a major shift in the result of an election, if it is planned right.

Private monopolies that must operate under specific rules, which are enforced by the public is preferable to a public monopoly.

Your country doesn't have the laws in place for that to work, and it would likely be labelled communism immediately by half the population. But I still don't think that a private monopoly is -ever- a good idea if you want anything cheap or high quality. Take a look at cell phone serveces recently, for example. It was -almost- a monopoly for a long time, only now are competitors coming out, and we suddenly discover that they can do it for less than half the price.

There are many restrictions on the current "free" market of insurance which if lifted could do much to make the market freer, for instance not being able to buy insurance across state lines and the expense of insurance not bought through your company or the fact that insurance is sold to companies and then the employees lack individual choice in coverage. The new insurance bazaar system, which addresses those very problems,  may be the only decent part of the current bill.

Agreed, these are issues that when fixed will go a long way toward lowering prices. But I doubt it would be enough, since being able to buy across state  lines paves the way for a monopoly to develop independently, which would be a disaster.

Exactly, they now get more without paying more. Which means they now have even more to lose in exchange for progressing out of their dependency state. Now as their income increases they lose another benefit, making it even less likely that they will choose to make more money. The majority of mankind will do nothing and get a little bit free than work hard and only see a little benefit, and honestly you'll need to almost triple your income from dependency to independence to see large differences, and during the period where you no longer fit into state programs because of income level and yet you can't actually make enough money to purchase everything you now lack your standard of living decreases. Making it less likely for you to try to improve yourself. Furthering the chances people choose not to progress, if there were no welfare programs then progression would be driven by survival (I'm not advocating elimination of every social welfare program I'm just stating a fact here.)

It's a before and after comparison:
before: I have nothing, and can get more by becoming independent
after: I have health insurance, and by becoming independent I get exactly what I did before, which hopefully included health insurance at a small price.

I think that the amount of money that would be paid for health insurance is much smaller than the amount of income that would be needed as an increase to move out of dependency status. Isn't is partially subsidized up to a certain imcome bracket as well?

How many people who make less than $15,000 a year own their own home in America do you think? They weren't worried about losing a home they didn't own, but now they have health care and now it's all the more likely the government will give them their own home next, so why work for it?

Insert [everything they own] where I originally said [home] and the point remains.

I'm interested to hear what parts of the federal government could use getting weakened in your opinion.

Well, I actually dislike the entire democracy system that most of democratic countries have. The brand of democracy we have is just deferral of decision making - we elect some guy to make our decisions for us for x number of years. Actual democracy involves mass decision making on most aspects of life. So I really dislike the idea of having a "head of state" at all - I think there should just be x number of administrators with limited decision making power that basically derive their power directly from majority vote on individual issues.

Perhaps not so feasible with huge populations, but I think that in a system where voting happens for most important issues, the power of a federal government ceases to be a problem.

[Shadow]

Double post:

Man, our arguments always degenerate into at least 4 sub arguments that are almost never related to what we started with ^_^