Selfish ideology aside...

[☭proletarian☭]

No? If you don't want to pay for Blackwater's contract or a new bridge in Alaska or some piece of pork, and you don't pay taxes because you shouldn't be forced to buy Blackwater's services or that bridge, what happens?

The Fed doesn't have money. It makes you buy what it wants by making you pay taxes to pay for it. Not to mention the whole 'you are the government' concept.


Like no-bid contracts and thousand-dollar toilet seats that you either pay for or get go to prison for not paying your taxes?

The only difference is the procedure.

I believe I said Proper Functions of Government.

You won't find me defending Cronyism in any form. Your attacks on Blackwater type no bids and Alaskan bridge style earmarks while at the same time using them as a pretext for Even More Abuses is pretty typical of Progressive Politics.

So taxation is ok as long as the powers that be spend them correctly?

Who decides what's correct? If the People vote for a project and I don't agree, am I not still being forced to buy something I don't want?

We're back to square one.

 

[boedicca]

The federal government made free wave broadcasts on open air illegal.
You have to buy television service, because of federal regulation. Although fed’s didn’t make their own TV stations, rather this is provided thru free market.

Uh. without a television or a computer, and the wired or wireless infrastructure - how on earth do you expect to access content?

A better issue upon which to focus is why should the Feds "own" airspace to begin with.

Congress has mandated that after February 17, 2009, television stations across the country must transmit only in digital signals, and may no longer transmit analog signals. After that date, consumers who rely on antennas (including outside antennas and "rabbit ears") to receive broadcast signals on TV sets having only analog tuners will need to obtain separate digital-to-analog set-top converter boxes to watch over-the-air TV.

No antennas and the government will leave you no choice but to buy from one company or another. The new transmission is digital.

Now I don't care if you watch NEWS or cartoons, the FCC is relevant, but you miss my point altogether. This is the same mandate as forcing of insurance on the masses. Paying for something they mandate. Or is it?

Why does one wrong may a second one right?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Without a TV, radio, internet, or subscription to some peridoical, how can one be an informed voter?

 

[Care4all]

Didn't Massachusetts MANDATE that all of their citizens purchase health insurance, and made it against the law if they did not?

If this were unconstitutional for the States, I would imagine there would have already been a lawsuit challenging it, no?

This does not necessarily make it constitutional for the Federal government mandating the purchase of health insurance, but I was just wondering if it also would be unconstitutional on the state level as well, for those who are strict constructionists?

I think MANDATING everyone to purchase health Insurance, even with the gvt subsidizing the cost for those who can not afford it, is a HUGE MISTAKE...especially since there is no option for us to purchase a "public" insurance plan or a nonprofit insurance plan.....the mandate as it stands, forces all of us, to purchase something from a private company that just lines their pockets with gold.

I'm sorry, but without the public insurance option....this MANDATE to purchase health insurance seems very, very, very WRONG to me.

Care

 

[boedicca]

Without a TV, radio, internet, or subscription to some peridoical, how can one be an informed voter?

That is the rat hole of reasoning that leads to:

Without a full belly how can one be an informed voter, and other such nonsense.

If one wishes to be informed, one is perfectly free to purchase the resources to be informed.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Without a TV, radio, internet, or subscription to some peridoical, how can one be an informed voter?

That is the rat hole of reasoning that leads to:

Without a full belly how can one be an informed voter, and other such nonsense.

Nice strawman, but it's a non sequitur.

If one wishes to be informed, one is perfectly free to purchase the resources to be informed.

Interesting. Either you pay the corporations for access to information or you remain ignorant as the corporations continue to take over America.

 

[Care4all]

Without a TV, radio, internet, or subscription to some peridoical, how can one be an informed voter?

That is the rat hole of reasoning that leads to:

Without a full belly how can one be an informed voter, and other such nonsense.

If one wishes to be informed, one is perfectly free to purchase the resources to be informed.

but isn't that kinda like a poll tax? I know it is not....but that is the first thing that came to mind....

One can't be informed about government, like watching c-span or reading articles off the net which has to be paid for by the citizen.

I'm wondering if this isn't exactly what these politicians WANT, sometimes....

 

[boedicca]

Interesting. Either you pay the corporations for access to information or you remain ignorant as the corporations continue to take over America.

You seem to think we should exist in a Utopia where everything one wishes is provided with no effort and no use resources.

This is Reality Dave.

We have two choices: allow the competitive forces of free markets to provide a wide variety of information, or a top down government controlled spigot of propaganda. You'll pay for it one way or another.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I'm wondering if this isn't exactly what these politicians WANT, sometimes....

I suspect you're correct on that note.

 

[boedicca]

but isn't that kinda like a poll tax? I know it is not....but that is the first thing that came to mind....

One can't be informed about government, like watching c-span or reading articles off the net which has to be paid for by the citizen.

I'm wondering if this isn't exactly what these politicians WANT, sometimes....

Having to buy a newspaper of pay for cable television is not a poll tax. A voter is still free to vote without proving they have read about or have any knowledge of the issues (that is a different discussion).

Somebody who really wishes to be informed will find a way at public libraries or with free newspapers. I see people digging through the recycling bin at the BART station to get newspapers quite frequently.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You seem to think we should exist in a Utopia where everything one wishes is provided with no effort and no use resources.

You seem to draw ignorant conclusions without knowing what you're talking about.

We have two choices: allow the competitive forces of free markets to provide a wide variety of information, or a top down government controlled spigot of propaganda. You'll pay for it one way or another.

Newsflash: we already have much of the market spewing government propaganda and you can spread just about any information you want via the web, so long as it's not related to the commission of crimes (eg: bomb blueprints, how to make anthrax)

 

[boedicca]

You seem to think we should exist in a Utopia where everything one wishes is provided with no effort and no use resources.

You seem to draw ignorant conclusions without knowing what you're talking about.

We have two choices: allow the competitive forces of free markets to provide a wide variety of information, or a top down government controlled spigot of propaganda. You'll pay for it one way or another.

Newsflash: we already have much of the market spewing government propaganda and you can spread just about any information you want via the web, so long as it's not related to the commission of crimes (eg: bomb blueprints, how to make anthrax)

You seem to be cognitively dissonant.

If you can't filter propaganda from news, no amount of government assistance is going to help you.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You seem to think we should exist in a Utopia where everything one wishes is provided with no effort and no use resources.

You seem to draw ignorant conclusions without knowing what you're talking about.

We have two choices: allow the competitive forces of free markets to provide a wide variety of information, or a top down government controlled spigot of propaganda. You'll pay for it one way or another.

Newsflash: we already have much of the market spewing government propaganda and you can spread just about any information you want via the web, so long as it's not related to the commission of crimes (eg: bomb blueprints, how to make anthrax)

You seem to be cognitively dissonant.

If you can't filter propaganda from news, no amount of government assistance is going to help you.

Then your complaint about 'a top down government controlled spigot of propaganda' is moot and you've just counter-argued against yourself.

 

[slackjawed]

but isn't that kinda like a poll tax? I know it is not....but that is the first thing that came to mind....

One can't be informed about government, like watching c-span or reading articles off the net which has to be paid for by the citizen.

I'm wondering if this isn't exactly what these politicians WANT, sometimes....

Having to buy a newspaper of pay for cable television is not a poll tax. A voter is still free to vote without proving they have read about or have any knowledge of the issues (that is a different discussion).

Somebody who really wishes to be informed will find a way at public libraries or with free newspapers. I see people digging through the recycling bin at the BART station to get newspapers quite frequently.

Please consider that if there were laws requiring people to read or watch or listen to the news, and there was 100% compliance, there would still be those that chose to remain uninformed.

 

[boedicca]

You seem to draw ignorant conclusions without knowing what you're talking about.Newsflash: we already have much of the market spewing government propaganda and you can spread just about any information you want via the web, so long as it's not related to the commission of crimes (eg: bomb blueprints, how to make anthrax)

You seem to be cognitively dissonant.

If you can't filter propaganda from news, no amount of government assistance is going to help you.

Then your complaint about 'a top down government controlled spigot of propaganda' is moot and you've just counter-argued against yourself.

Actually, you are just proving my point.

Thanks!

 

[Jurginvoncelle]

The federal government made free wave broadcasts on open air illegal.
You have to buy television service, because of federal regulation. Although fed’s didn’t make their own TV stations, rather this is provided thru free market.

Uh. without a television or a computer, and the wired or wireless infrastructure - how on earth do you expect to access content?

A better issue upon which to focus is why should the Feds "own" airspace to begin with.

Congress has mandated that after February 17, 2009, television stations across the country must transmit only in digital signals, and may no longer transmit analog signals. After that date, consumers who rely on antennas (including outside antennas and "rabbit ears") to receive broadcast signals on TV sets having only analog tuners will need to obtain separate digital-to-analog set-top converter boxes to watch over-the-air TV.

No antennas and the government will leave you no choice but to buy from one company or another. The new transmission is digital.

Now I don't care if you watch NEWS or cartoons, the FCC is relevant, but you miss my point altogether. This is the same mandate as forcing of insurance on the masses. Paying for something they mandate. Or is it?

Why does one wrong may a second one right?

There is no difference. You get NOTHING for nothing! You want “something” you will have to pay for it! However, technology has proven obsolescence to be...well: obsolete.

My point was you pay for cable TV because Technologies have changed, and must be delivered a different way. Same as health care.

Since chaos, as a policy, is not a steadfast quality, In the case of broadcasting, someone would have to assign at least operation parameters. Enter the FCC.

FCC is in control of air waves, so there IS regulation. You don't want a garage door opener, unlocking cars, or everyone trying to use the same “push to talk” frequency on their walkie/talkie telephone. Thank you FCC! These electronic devises operate on invisible frequencies, that must be regulated so things in our modern world work properly.


Upgrades in technology are paid for by the free market, but regulated by the Government
Same same… for health care.
We can do a lot to streamline our hospitals to save money.

The reason this was all posted here was I feel that the advancement of practicing medicine in our nation is held up because of political selfishness, lots of rich companies, and trumped up fear. That’s the issue of right and wrong. This thread just went another way.

Without a TV, radio, internet, or subscription to some peridoical, how can one be an informed voter?

I would say you can't. Would that not price out the poor from being informed? At least radio is still free, until XM takes over.

 

[boedicca]

There is no difference. You get NOTHING for nothing! You want “something” you will have to pay for it! However, technology has proven obsolescence to be...well: obsolete.

My point was you pay for cable TV because Technologies have changed, and must be delivered a different way. Same as health care.

Since chaos, as a policy, is not a steadfast quality, In the case of broadcasting, someone would have to assign at least operation parameters. Enter the FCC.

FCC is in control of air waves, so there IS regulation. You don't want a garage door opener, unlocking cars, or everyone trying to use the same “push to talk” frequency on their walkie/talkie telephone. Thank you FCC! These electronic devises operate on invisible frequencies, that must be regulated so things in our modern world work properly.


Upgrades in technology are paid for by the free market, but regulated by the Government
Same same… for health care.
We can do a lot to streamline our hospitals to save money.

The reason this was all posted here was I feel that the advancement of practicing medicine in our nation is held up because of political selfishness, lots of rich companies, and trumped up fear. That’s the issue of right and wrong. This thread just went another way.

Here's the problem with your analogy:

Government regulation regarding communications don't force someone to pay for something they don't want. There are alternatives - VOIP for example, for people who wish to seek them.

A nationalization of health care will eliminate alternatives.

 

[Jurginvoncelle]

Here's the problem with your analogy:

Government regulation regarding communications don't force someone to pay for something they don't want. There are alternatives - VOIP for example, for people who wish to seek them.

A nationalization of health care will eliminate alternatives.

But that in turn becomes a "cost of living". That can be budgeted for, both federally and personally.

So what choices concern you that would be taken away?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There is no difference. You get NOTHING for nothing! You want “something” you will have to pay for it! However, technology has proven obsolescence to be...well: obsolete.

My point was you pay for cable TV because Technologies have changed, and must be delivered a different way. Same as health care.

Since chaos, as a policy, is not a steadfast quality, In the case of broadcasting, someone would have to assign at least operation parameters. Enter the FCC.

FCC is in control of air waves, so there IS regulation. You don't want a garage door opener, unlocking cars, or everyone trying to use the same “push to talk” frequency on their walkie/talkie telephone. Thank you FCC! These electronic devises operate on invisible frequencies, that must be regulated so things in our modern world work properly.


Upgrades in technology are paid for by the free market, but regulated by the Government
Same same… for health care.
We can do a lot to streamline our hospitals to save money.

The reason this was all posted here was I feel that the advancement of practicing medicine in our nation is held up because of political selfishness, lots of rich companies, and trumped up fear. That’s the issue of right and wrong. This thread just went another way.

Here's the problem with your analogy:

Government regulation regarding communications don't force someone to pay for something they don't want. There are alternatives - VOIP for example, for people who wish to seek them.

A nationalization of health care will eliminate alternatives.

VoIP requires internet service.

 

[rdean]

When the poor go to emergency rooms; then, as of current; we collectively ALL pay for them anyway. (Is that Socialized, or Communistic?)

So put away that argument that “I shouldn’t have to pay for anyone else” You already do. You can pay more, or you can pay less, but you will pay.

I've read that some conservatives want ID cards issued and if people don't have a card, they can't get medical help. As soon as you point out that obviously they wouldn't have a problem with a mother watching her baby die because they don't have a "card", they become outraged.

But I'm not sure if the outrage is because they could accept something so odious or because they have been called on their heartlessness.

Since visiting a doctor in a clinic is anywhere from 60 to 200 dollars and the average Emergency room visit is more than a grand, more than $1,500 of you are between 45 and 65, the cost is 10 times at least the cost of visiting a doctor. Going to the emergency room as chief medical care is bankrupting our system.

Obviously, it was be cheaper to have a public option. Yet conservatives have cried "socialism" so much, they actually believe their own retarded rhetoric.

10 times the cost, at least, that's the fact. Fear keeps them from seeing a solution. It must be exhausting to be so scared all the time.