Topic: We are the enemy. - page 3. (Read 6054 times)

Everyone pays taxes.

Everyone gets sick and all level of society get much the same illnesses.

Paying for healthcare through the tax system stops price gouging of the sick, it stops money being wasted on marketing and it stops insurance companies dumping hard cases through rescission.

If you look at the numbers, systems like the NHS in the UK are cheap to run yet offer better results.  

I can't see why anyone would want to pay more and get worse results, so I assume that people who advocate against state provision have either a vested interested in high drug prices or are freeloaders who will present themselves for treatment when their luck runs out.

the only reason the state seems to need to control health care costs is becasue of the state of the manufacturing, industry, economy, and unemployment they intentionally killed TO SPECIFICALLY ALLOW THOSE CONTROL MECHANISMS TO COME IN.

If anything, the prices for everything should be decreasing as technology advances manufacturing, communications, industry, and services. The ones you defend are killing you and you dont even realize it.

I will admit we need to take care of the people in need... for now, but we must turn around this control structure and take control of our government and economy, and start farming and manufacturing again. Kill the trade treaties we ratified allowing corporations to import everything made by people earning a bowl of rice and a poke in the eye instead of sane wages, put high tarrifs on imports, high taxes on corporations, then lower them as they create jobs. Another answer is banking reform. In addition to the robber barons going overseas and unfettered importation, the money trusts and money changers (central banking system) are screwing us as well, and is a prime cause of our indebtedness.

People making a good living, living responsibly, and saving can take care of their own medical needs.

People who try to stop the state managing heath care costs are the bad guys.  Some things are best done collectively.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

or as a paraphrased ideal of that...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. "

Edmund Burke 1770

Yet the only thing that truly matters is reality, not the ideal world in your mind. 

I agree. If (God forbid) you were ever to procreate and your child caused my child to get sick, I would hold you financially liable for the disease treatment, loss of wages, education time, and pain and suffering. I would sue you for everything you have.

What you need to do is get a law forbidding the government from paying for healthcare passed.

Good luck.

The health care still must be paid for and there is no reason anyone other than smokers should pay it.  I appreciate you don't like paying for it but it does have to be paid for. 

It's unfair to tax all cigarettes (I'm supposed to pay that tax AND others' medical expenses while paying for my own family's insurance while I haven't been above the USG's income poverty line since my first job), and I will continue to evade those taxes. As those taxes increase - as I said earlier, more and more people will find following government regulation more burdensome than evading it, and for a government to recoup the taxes being "stolen" from them, they'll need to spend more cracking down on illegalities (which has proven rather ineffective in the USG's "War on Drugs"), likely negating tax revenues from the increased taxation/regulation.

Then to the USG and all governments seeking to collect money in the manner of organized criminals -- good luck, godspeed, and may China continue to finance. (didn't create a new post so as to not continue derailing this thread)

If you have private insurance and if your insurance covers you for asbestosis and for lung cancer, great.  We are all happy for you.  But lots of people don't.  We still have to provide them with health care.  So a tax is justified.

I was not willing to pay thousands to follow government law on asbestos. The lack of respirator was stupid laziness on my part. ETA fwiw: I wouldn't have removed it at all if I weren't legally required to do so prior to selling the house.

Cigarette smokers have to have their illnesses treated using government money when government involves itself with paying for health treatment. I pay for my own healthcare, so justifying charging me 4x or more the cost of production in various taxes and regulations on producers is unfounded.

kluge - cigarette smokers get cancer and come to hospitals for treatment.  That has to be paid for.  In the UK, smokers actually make a small profit for the NHS because they generate slightly more revenue than they consume in cancer treatments.  I assume that's the kind of tax you are talking about?

As a smoker, the risk of cancer doesn't scare you but, seriously, you messed about with asbestos?  No matter how much money you saved, that's not a good idea. 

Maybe not politically, but the more laws governments enforce with less funding, the easier it is to just ignore the government altogether. Forced gov't regulations -> demand for unregulated (cheaper) goods. Sin taxes on cigarettes are a great example. The government has essentially forced all legal producers/resellers of cigarettes to sell @ >3x the price they ought to be. Some US states still permit people to "lease" cigarette-rolling machines from smoke shops. Usually comes to half-price, depending on how "pipe tobacco" is taxed. Leasing the machine amounts to about half the total production cost. Roll them at home, and it's ~1/4 the price of pre-fab legally-sold cigarettes in US states, maybe 1/10 or so the price in particularly obnoxious anti-cigarette areas like NYC. That fraction of the price still includes pipe tobacco tax. Remove that, and there's even greater profit potential. Meanwhile, most police officers are human enough to realize how asinine it is to punish people selling "illegal" cigarettes, and don't charge (instead telling the offender to just not do that around here) assuming it's not connected to organized crime. Selling alcohol in areas like NYC on the street isn't too uncommon, either.

Point I'm getting at -- the more obnoxious government is, the less likely it is for people to operate legally, and the more likely it is to create black markets. At that point, when regulations are so obstructive as to make illegal production preferable, government loses all control over the market, loses tax revenues on production/resale, has to beef up the LEO budget for enforcement, and disenfranchises its citizens. Long-term, this is great for civil liberties, so long as government is unable to secure adequate funding to practically enforce all its law. As government increasingly barks about criminalizing economic ventures, anarchy becomes more and more widespread.

Here're a couple well-fitting examples, I believe. In a city I previously lived in, all plumbing work had to be done by a "master plumber." I was going to hire a plumber to install a toilet. After companies told me the price increase due to needing a "master plumber," I decided just to install the toilet myself. Had the city just insisted all plumbing work had to be done by a plumber, I would've just hired a plumber - but they went too far, and made it too expensive for me to prefer following the law. Another example -- a state I previously lived in insisted all asbestos had to be removed by a licensed asbestos abatement company, and sent to a special very-expensive dump. That cost many thousands, so I instead removed the asbestos tile myself - no mask - drove all the asbestos tiling to another state ~6h away where I had a trash container, and dumped it in there. Cigarettes, of course, I roll myself using "pipe tobacco." There are many ways to get around governments which make living too burdensome, and as those burdens increase, more and more people will simply ignore law.

It's education and rage. It is unlawful for the military to operate domestically, even by proxy.  A population aware of the wrong their government is doing is the first step in fixing it. The people have the power, ability, and responsibility to be informed and participate in their government, else others with an agenda will take it over, which has ocurred over the last 100 years. More people should be outraged.

Ron Paul is not the solution, but he is our best choice if we wish to return to some semblance of a Constitutional Republic and get away from this fascist government. I have many issues with Ron Paul, but who else are we going to elect? Look at the choices and their backgrounds and controllers. In the end, both parties are identical, while feeding us minor issues to keep us arguing amongst ourselves instead of coming together at one people against the wrongs in our system. Personally, I believe Ron paul to be a partially controlled opposition to the people, instead of a fully controlled opposition to the people, placed and kept there as an emergency mechanism so the insidious influences dont lose everything all at once, as would happen if the people truly woke up, revolted and/or elected someone truly for the people.

If you are a student of true world history, you would know that the people always eventaully win against the state. Throughout history all civilizations have fallen. Ours has not ... yet. Throughout history all tyrannical and oppressive leaders and regimes have fallen when they went to far and the people revolted or they were invaded. The current system of freedom-based governemnt is not very old in comparison. the ruling elites blinked and gave in to the people when they became unhappy and revolted to give us this freedom, while others fought hard for it. Most recently, they learned to use psychology to make the people think they are happy to keep control of their governments and their wealth and power. This too will change. We may not see it in our lifetime, but it will happen, and we have to set an example for our descendents to follow. The people will always have the power, but there will be many casualties.


The problem is that they are using the military to spy on their own people, unlawfully operating domestically.

Not really I suppose.

The only thing I can think of is that the ethics of the soldier are no longer a factor. The evil leader can say "shoot this child" to a robot and it will happen. With a soldier, they need the soldier to be evil too.

History shows that that isn't as hard as you'd have hoped, so I don't suppose it makes much difference.

Honestly I'm not seeing the problem here.  Is a bomber flown by remote control really different from one flown by a pilot? 

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2011/08/21/if-i-were-president

That's because the bankers always support the stronger state. States do fall, but one will never succeed against the banks.

What I love about the Politics forum (and, indeed, any politics subforum in general) is that people rage at things like this, but nobody ever proposes a politically feasible solution.

Go ahead, try to get Ron Paul elected or start a petition... and watch it fail.  

I've come to realize that there's no point in talking about politics, because one will never succeed against the state.  

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/02/faa_drones.html

“the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system at six test ranges.”

We are the enemy.