Author Topic: Hello Socialism!  (Read 42367 times)

...has left the building.

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« on: April 04, 2006, 02:35:53 PM »
Mass. Lawmakers OK Mandatory Health Bill

By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance.

The plan  approved just 24 hours after the final details were released  would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured.

If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.

The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.

The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.

The House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote. The Senate endorsed it 37-0.

A final procedural vote is needed in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled legislature before the bill can head to the desk of Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008.

Romney has expressed support for the measure but has not said whether he will sign it.

"It's only fitting that Massachusetts would set forward and produce the most comprehensive, all-encompassing health care reform bill in the country," said House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat. "Do we know whether this is perfect or not? No, because it's never been done before."

The only other state to come close to the Massachusetts plan is Maine, which passed a law in 2003 to dramatically expand health care. That plan relies largely on voluntary compliance.

"What Massachusetts is doing, who they are covering, how they're crafting it, especially the individual requirement, that's all unique," said Laura Tobler, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The plan hinges in part on two key sections: the $295-per-employee business assessment and a so-called "individual mandate," requiring every citizen who can afford it to obtain health insurance or face increasing tax penalties.

Liberals typically support employer mandates, while conservatives generally back individual responsibility.

"The novelty of what's happened in this building is that instead of saying, `Let's do neither,' leaders are saying, `Let's do both,'" said John McDonough of Health Care for All. "This will have a ripple effect across the country."

The state's poorest  single adults making $9,500 or less a year  will have access to health coverage with no premiums or deductibles.

Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $48,000 for a family of three, will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale, also with no deductibles.

The vast majority of Massachusetts residents who are already insured could see a modest easing of their premiums.

Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.

Romney pushed vigorously for the individual mandate and called the legislation "something historic, truly landmark, a once-in-a-generation opportunity."

One goal of the bill is to protect $385 million pledged by the federal government over each of the next two years if the state can show it is on a path to reducing its number of uninsured.

The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services has threatened to withhold the money if the state does not have a plan up and running by July 1.

cosine

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,734
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2006, 03:30:13 PM »
Yep, it's here. Shocked Sad
Andy

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2006, 05:34:52 PM »
I want them to pass a law saying all citizens must have a yacht or a car or a bank account.  We can legislate ourselves to prosperity.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

matis

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2006, 05:41:39 PM »
And I want them to pass a law that every household MUST have a shotgun and a handgun and ammo for same -- to protect the citizens who live there.

Kennesaw Georgia did it.  (A "ceremonial" law in reaction to Morton Grove, Illinois law barring ALL weapons.)

That's MY kind of socialism!


matis
Si vis pacem; para bellum.

jefnvk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,478
  • I'll sleep away the days and ride the nights...
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2006, 05:55:02 PM »
Quote
The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee
Seems cheap to me.  I would think it would cost a lot more to insure a person for a year.
I still say 'Give Detroit to Canada'

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,985
  • I'm an Extremist!
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2006, 06:01:26 PM »
It IS cheap. The article should have read, " does not call for new taxes this year". Next year. after "we won't raise your taxes for this" is forgotten, they'll raise the taxes.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Winston Smith

  • friends
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Cheaper than a locksmith
    • My Photography
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2006, 06:15:45 PM »
What if I don't want to have health insurance?
Jack
APS #22
I'm eighteen years old. I know everything and I'm invincible.
Right?

Standing Wolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,978
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2006, 06:31:46 PM »
Quote
What if I don't want to have health insurance?
You'll take a tax hit as a "negative incentive" to join the herd.

It's difficult to believe the American Revolution was started in Massachussets.
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

gunsmith

  • I forgot to get vaccinated!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,179
  • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2006, 08:16:38 PM »
who the heck decides I can afford it?

I can not afford it right now, I am just keeping gas in the tank and the rent paid
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".
Rocket Man: "The need for booster shots for the immunized has always been based on the science.  Political science, not medical science."

Guest

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2006, 08:22:45 PM »
Quote from: gunsmith
who the heck decides I can afford it?

I can not afford it right now, I am just keeping gas in the tank and the rent paid
Housing assistance, public transportation, welfare. You can afford it, you just have to start sucking at the teet. You see that is the whole point here. Once everyone is on the dole then the government can have total control of you and your whole life.

doczinn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,205
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2006, 09:01:08 PM »
Quote
The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.
Oh, OK, it's a "fee", not a "tax.
D. R. ZINN

El Tejon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,641
    • http://www.kirkfreemanlaw.com
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2006, 03:11:37 AM »
History has shown that anytime you collectivize anything it makes it tons better.Cheesy
I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.

Art Eatman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,442
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2006, 04:03:10 AM »
I'd say, Hello MORE Socialism."  After all, we went Socialist with the Income Tax:  "From each according to his ability to pay."

Isn't part of the deal of Fascism, "You own the business but we'll tell you how to run it"?  "...require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee."

"...those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage..."

Anybody wanna bet what the demographic shift in Massachussetts is gonna be over the next decade?  Always remember, "If you want more of something, subsidize it."  That includes poverty.  If you look at all the other shifts in American cities that have resulted from governmental do-good, and, e.g., compare the incomes of those moving into California with the incomes of those leaving...

The changes in taxation oughta be interesting...

Art
The American Indians learned what happens when you don't control immigration.

Can'thavenuthingood

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2006, 07:46:14 AM »
"One goal of the bill is to protect $385 million pledged by the federal government..........."

There it is right there, a big sack of money cause's the massachusetts potlickers to stumble and drool all over themselves.

Just like recycling, blue containers, yellow baskets, green yard waste receptacles and bundled cardboard. Healthcare membership levels will be denoted by flavors of your documents.

Fees, fines and surcharges will be increased on a regular schedule. Co-pays will creep up monthly as payments are accepted via Visa or Mastercard.

Another bureaucracy is being created and the percentage of "production" workers decreases as the number of government employees increase.

Kingdom enhancment brought to you by your federal bureaucracy writing administrative law.

I can hardly wait for California to get wind of this.

Vick

Guest

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2006, 08:23:48 AM »
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: El Tejon
History has shown that anytime you collectivize anything it makes it tons better.Cheesy
That is so true.
If this is sarcastic, and you are really an individualist, why were you rude and dismissive to me on another thread when I mentioned that I am strongly libertarian?

 If, OTOH, it is serious, I fully understand your other comment.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,392
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2006, 08:52:47 AM »
Merc, I was scoffing at your ludicrous anarchism, not your libertarianism.  Speaking of which, how are the two compatible?  I thought libertarians believed in having laws and governments, regardless how minimal.

Or perhaps you mean libertarian in a different sense?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Guest

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2006, 08:55:41 AM »
Quote from: fistful
Merc, I was scoffing at your ludicrous anarchism, not your libertarianism.  Speaking of which, how are the two compatible?  I thought libertarians believed in having laws and governments, regardless how minimal.

Or perhaps you mean libertarian in a different sense?
In a way. There are "Big-L" and "small-l" libertarians. The former are the Libertarian Party and the latter are non-political, principled persons.

 Market Anarchism is the logical, consistant end-result of libertarianism. In libertarianism, there is a principle called the "Non-Aggression Principle" - the "NAP".

It states that humans don't have the right to initiate force against each other. Big-L Libertarians - the ones that belong to and support the Libertarian Party - only support the NAP to a point; they still advocate taxes, courts and the military.

 OTOH, if one takes the NAP seriously to its logical end, one is forced to concede that taxes, and the courts, police and military they support, are violations of the NAP since one is punished (aggression) if one doesn't pay the taxes.

Therefore, if one is a consistant libertarian, one must accept market anarchism.

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2006, 02:23:27 PM »
Quote from: matis
And I want them to pass a law that every household MUST have a shotgun and a handgun and ammo for same -- to protect the citizens who live there.

Kennesaw Georgia did it.  (A "ceremonial" law in reaction to Morton Grove, Illinois law barring ALL weapons.)

That's MY kind of socialism!


matis
I don't.  The fewer laws, the better.  Mandating that everyone own a gun is no better than mandating health insurance.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,392
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2006, 02:50:38 PM »
Interesting, Merc,

I use the small-l to denote a person with libertarian principles, but who is not a member or supporter of the party.  I am one of those, mostly because I feel that libertarian principles militate strongly for the recriminalization of abortion, while the L party's platform is pro-abortion.

I'm sure there is some flaw in your necessary transition from libertarianism to anarchism, but I haven't studied either formally enough to spell it out clearly.  I think you should observe the distinction I outlined between the two philosophies, however, as this makes for more transparent conversation.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2006, 03:35:56 PM »
Quote from: fistful
I use the small-l to denote a person with libertarian principles, but who is not a member or supporter of the party.  I am one of those, mostly because I feel that libertarian principles militate strongly for the recriminalization of abortion, while the L party's platform is pro-abortion.
I view it as a demarcation between those who want to go straight to the ideal, and the moderates who believe that while ideal, compromises have to be made in our imperfect world.  For example, while open borders would be great, the fact is that this country and it's people have enemies,  and we can't reach the ideals if we're taken over by China or Mexico.  Plus, we have to wean whole generations off of the government support teat, teach them financial responsability, etc...

Oh, and it's Pro-CHOICE, unless you want to say that the Libertarian party advocates that pregnant women in certain situations be forced to have an abortion.  Of course, I'm one of the 'safe, legal, and rare' crowd.  If it must be done, best done as soon as possible.

Quote
I'm sure there is some flaw in your necessary transition from libertarianism to anarchism, but I haven't studied either formally enough to spell it out clearly.  I think you should observe the distinction I outlined between the two philosophies, however, as this makes for more transparent conversation.
It's a social contract thing.  NAP means that being the initiator of force is forbidden, but responding to it is fine.  Thus police are free to arrest a murderer, the court to convict him, and an executioner to kill him.  He violated NAP.

You need courts anyways to mediate private party contracts, or you get private resolutions to this that favor the strong and violent.  Look at what happens with drug gangs.  While not perfect, our court system at least tries to be impartial, and has the ability to force judgements against an unconsenting party, unlike a private mediator which both sides have to agree to use.  Though I'd generally try to charge one party or another expenses.  This can be difficult if a party doesn't have the financial means, but there are ways to ensure that they can be heard as well.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2006, 03:48:21 PM »
Quote from: JamisJockey
Quote from: matis
And I want them to pass a law that every household MUST have a shotgun and a handgun and ammo for same -- to protect the citizens who live there.

Kennesaw Georgia did it.  (A "ceremonial" law in reaction to Morton Grove, Illinois law barring ALL weapons.)

That's MY kind of socialism!


matis
I don't.  The fewer laws, the better.  Mandating that everyone own a gun is no better than mandating health insurance.
Except its a lot cheaper and more effective.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,392
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2006, 07:38:22 PM »
Quote from: Firethorn
I view it as a demarcation between those who want to go straight to the ideal, and the moderates who believe that while ideal, compromises have to be made in our imperfect world.  For example, while open borders would be great, the fact is that this country and it's people have enemies,  and we can't reach the ideals if we're taken over by China or Mexico.  Plus, we have to wean whole generations off of the government support teat, teach them financial responsability, etc...
So, you are also an anarchist, or just a hard-core libertarian?  Please explain.  Do you understand I was responding to an Anarchist/Libertarian, and discussing the difference between the two?

Quote
Oh, and it's Pro-CHOICE, unless you want to say that the Libertarian party advocates that pregnant women in certain situations be forced to have an abortion.
"Pro-choice" is a euphemism for "pro-abortion."  Both terms indicate a position that abortion should be legal.  There is no difference.  You are playing, or playing along, with a semantic game developed for PR reasons.  Being pro-abortion doesn't imply forced abortion any more than being pro-gun implies that you will chain a pistol around a person's waist.  Although, it would be interesting to see what Rosie O'Donnel would do in this situation.  

"Pro-life" is also a euphemism, even if more appropriate, but I prefer to do without it, as I don't think my position is anything that needs disguising.  

Quote
It's a social contract thing.  NAP means that being the initiator of force is forbidden, but responding to it is fine.  Thus police are free to arrest a murderer, the court to convict him, and an executioner to kill him.  He violated NAP.
Agreed, but now you're not sounding like an anarchist, so I am getting more confused.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Guest

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2006, 05:23:57 AM »
Quote from: fistful
Interesting, Merc,

I use the small-l to denote a person with libertarian principles, but who is not a member or supporter of the party.  I am one of those, mostly because I feel that libertarian principles militate strongly for the recriminalization of abortion, while the L party's platform is pro-abortion.

I'm sure there is some flaw in your necessary transition from libertarianism to anarchism, but I haven't studied either formally enough to spell it out clearly.  I think you should observe the distinction I outlined between the two philosophies, however, as this makes for more transparent conversation.
O.K.

Here is an article I found today:

 The Most Crucial Gap in Politics.

"Nevertheless, I see the anarchist/statist distinction as the most fundamental political divide. Once one accepts the notion that initiating aggression is OK under some circumstances, then the case for human liberty has been abandoned, and all that remains is to argue over what degree of enslavement is acceptable. Having ventured down that road, minarchist libertarians should not be surprised at the difficulties they encounter in resisting the expansion of their night-watchman state."

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2006, 10:00:12 AM »
Quote from: James Madison, The Federalist No. 51
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Since men are not angels, we need some form of government, even if merey to enforce the NAP...by breaking it.

Most libertarianism has a founding in the reality of man's nature, though it goes off the rails at times, and becomes a utopian creed.  

Anarchism is utopian from the get-go.

I think mankind has had enough utopian ideologies grind men up trying to immanentize the eschaton in the last century to last for a millenium.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,392
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2006, 01:31:23 PM »
Quote
immanentize the eschaton
Admit it, you just want to impress us all, don't you ?  Smiley  Reminds me of a question my uncle Dennis once asked me, "What are the soteriological ramifications of the hypostatic union?"  But we expect that from preachers.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife