I'm not getting the correlation between taxation without representation, and theft.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I'm not getting the correlation between taxation without representation, and theft.

I'm stunned you wrote that.

Read this. How many in that list apply today? Perhaps you should join the Tea Party.

---

how exactly are the poor stealing? by being allowed to survive on the fringe? I assume you are talking about the elite uber wealthy that as Kevin Smith railed about in Dogma. "Men in seats of inscrutable power with nothing left to fear." the same folks that screwed the American people then begged or Govt handouts and they laid off workers forced companies to downsize and caused another "great depression" Between our gov't being patsies for the Corporate hedonists and the complete disconnect with the People, I think this country is getting close to being sick and tired of being screwed over by the man. The French had their revoltion around 200 years ago over the same problem. Rich elite men running a country into the ground with nothing to fear. The law of the land cant touch them since they an layers deep from any wrong doing that they implement. They get to do the plausible deniability thing.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I'm not getting the correlation between taxation without representation, and theft.

I'm stunned you wrote that.

Read this. How many in that list apply today?

None. The last time I checked, George III was still dead.

Perhaps you should join the Tea Party.

Uh, I don't think so.

So I understand, are you saying that other US citizens who receive any kind of payment or other benefit from the state or federal government are stealing from you?

---

Join the PACK!

Under the Universal Single Payer plan, such as we have in Canada, there would be no loss of coverage when a job is lost. No one will lose their home due to a bankruptcy caused by medical expenses in this country. NO ONE.

That isn't a herd mentality. It's a civil society that takes care of it's citizens when they need help the most.

Like my aunt in Vancouver that needs stints in her heart to improve the quality of her life but is deemed too old for such a procedure that is common place under private insurance in the states(they prescribed her nitro glycerin pills)! this is not counting the months she waited to see a specialist!. Same as my Sisters father in law who lives in Montreal who has Prostate cancer that they are leaning towards not operate on again becasue of his age. We want this in the states? So no idividual goes bankrupt just the entire country brilliant!no thank you!

---

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men."

Willy Wonka

OK, now for the *REAL* problem with health care in the USA (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world).

The problem is not that so many people are uninsured. The problem is that health care is not affordable anymore.

When I was a small child, I had to have surgery. Everything (the Doctor, the Surgeon, the Anesthesiologist, the hospital stay... everything) came to about US$300.00. The average family income back then was about US$12000.00 per year. So, my surgery cost about 2.5% of the average family yearly income back then.

Back in July 2008, my older son had to get his 2 month vaccinations. His pediatrician billed around $1,400.00. For just 5 fsckin vaccinations (4 injections and one oral)!! After seeing *that* bill, I quickly discovered the miracle of the county health department. In 2007, per the US Census department, the average family income was US$50,233.00. So, just my son's 2-month shots came out to about 2.8% of the average family yearly income.

I am glad that the Government run heathcare system (such as it is) worked for you.

You see what is wrong with the situation?

Health care is not affordable any more. Why? Well, here are the reasons.

1. Health Insurance: When I was a small child, very few people had health insurance. The doctor had to look the patient in the eye and tell them "Ok, I think I can cure you, but it will cost $x.xx..." Not so anymore. Now, they just fill out a form, and send it away to someone else. No longer is there a psychological factor in holding down costs. It's just "Who cares what I charge, the patient won't have to come up with the money themselves..."

There is a point here. Which is why a Single Payer system would have been so much better than the full employment for the insurance industry bill that we currently have.

2. Doctors/hospitals/etc's excessive greed: Back then, one didn't go into medicine to 'get rich'. You went into medicine to help people and make a difference in your community. Hospitals were mostly either city/county run, or were run by private charities or religious organizations. Now, people go into medicine to make lots of money, and most of the hospitals are for-profit.

Not all doctors are in it to get rich. Many doctors now are just able to turn on the lights in the office. The insurance companies keep cutting reimbursement to the doctors, but do NOT cut rates correspondingly. The balance goes to the insurance company and the CEO of the insurance company.

3. Government over-regulation: While some small amount of government regulation of health care is likely a good thing, health care has now been regulated almost to death. Many hospitals today have more administrators on staff whose job it is to massage the mountains of paperwork the government requires than they have patient beds. With the exception of giving these non-productive bureaucrats a job, just HOW is this a good thing?

Most of the administration in a doctors office or hospital is to deal with the insurance companies, not to deal with regulation by the government. I will admit that there are some regulations, but not nearly as bad as you indicate. I do know of several doctors offices that have three insurance specialists per doctor - so they can get paid.

4. Lawsuits & Lawyers: L&L... Even scarier than D&D, because L&L is *real*! Bahhh... A number of years ago, I knew an OB/GYN in Dallas. He told me that he was in a bind. It seems that Medicaid would only pay just so much for a delivery, and that his malpractice insurance premiums were so high that the small amount of money left over wouldn't cover his expenses. He was an older doctor therefore he wasn't as profit-motivated as many of his peers (almost all of whom had stopped taking Medicaid patients for this reason), but he was still worried that he might have to stop as well. But, he didn't want to do so because he cared about them.

95% of malpractice lawsuits are generated by 5% of doctors. Please give us a way to put that 5% of doctors out of business.

People are just too lawsuit-happy nowadays. They see it as 'free money', and many will sue at the drop of a hat. Medicine is not perfect, and quite likely never will be. A doctor can do everything right, and still fail to help (or worse, lose) the patient. These days, a doctor has to practice 'defensive medicine' to help stave off the inevitable malpractice lawsuits. That is, they have to order every test in the book that is even slightly related, even though they had it figured out after the first couple of tests. This, alone, wastes tremendous amounts of money.

Its simple. Get rid of medical malpractice lawsuits (and drug/medical product liability suits while we are at it). We would save a boatload of money, though I imagine that lawyers, the insurance industry, and certain people who look at lawsuits like they would the lottery would be most displeased.

5. Federal Govt. healthcare programs: As private health insurance was making inroads into the population in the mid 1960's, the Fed. Govt. created medicare for the elderly. Combined with private health insurance, Medicare is responsible for a lot of the vast, ugly inflation in health care costs since the mid-1960's. Maybe even more so, since at least in the early days of the program the Govt. was more willing to pay the higher claims than private insurance (with its profit motivation) was. And for anyone that actually *wants* the Federal Government to run health care in the USA, might I suggest that you take a look at a health care program that they already do run.. The VA hospitals. The VA hospitals provide some of the most (forgive the slight naughty language) piss-poor health care on the planet. The US Federal Government runs that system to provide our military veterans the health care they were promised in exchange for service to our country, and it is a total 100% National Disgrace. Enough said. You really want the Federal Govt. running YOUR health care (for those of you that are US Citizens)? If you think you do now, please go visit your local VA hospital, and talk to some of the Veterans there. If that doesn't change your mind, you need a nice long stay in a rubber room with a coat that ties in the back, cause you are nuts.

The federal healthcare costs less per person with the same problem and outcome than the private insurance companies. If I recall the numbers, the government run health care has an overhead in the range of 15% to 20%. The private insurance companies have an overhead in the range of 30 to 40%.

6. So-called 'intellectual property' laws aka. the March of Progress: This one is a real kicker. Another HUGE reason health care costs have become unaffordable without insurance is all the new fancy machines, gizmos, devices, and wonder-drugs. Do we live longer now, compared to back when I was a kid? Well, the average life expectancy is a little longer now compared to back then, but how much of it is due to all the fancy new stuff? And how much is due to better preventative care, better health awareness, and better discouragement of undesirable health habits (smoking, obesity, etc.)?

Sometimes these are over used. However, sometimes they are critical to cure or even survival. The survival rates for some problems are much higher now than they were in the past. Health consciousness? With the obesity epidemic here in the US? Are you serious?

Granted, the new stuff has helped some. Most people would like to continue to improve things. However we need to take a good long look at the way this progress is funded.

To give a personal example, I was severely ill a few years ago. One of the medications I was taking (an antibiotic) cost US$8.00 a pill... wholesale... in lots of 1000. Well, I had to pay retail for it, so it was considerably higher. And I had to take 2 every 4 hours for 2 weeks. It worked out to over US$2500.00. Well, it was a NEW antibiotic, so because of patents there was no generic available. A drug company in India had 'ripped off' the US drug company and started producing this medicine without a patent license for much less. If I could have gotten the Indian version, it would have only been around US$200.00.

The US drug companies justify charging such huge fees for their products saying that they have to do a LOT of research and spend a LOT of money just to bring one new drug to the market, which is true. The way the system is set up currently, they have to do this. The US drug companies are kinda forced to extortion of the US population to fund research into yet newer ways to extort money from the US citizens (and hopefully improve their health a little bit.. maybe.. kinda-sorta...).

We need a NEW system to fund medical research. If you want the US Govt. to get involved in health care, how about on this? The US Govt. would hire researchers to develop new medicines instead of letting the drug companies do it. When one of the new drugs is demonstrated to be of real benefit, it goes to market. Since the US taxpayer funded the research, the US Govt. controls the patent, which it would then freely license to all drug companies worldwide to make and sell (at a *reasonable* profit, of course... not the current monopoly price gouging that is going on).

A similar scheme would work on medical devices and all the other new, shiny toys that cost so bloody much.

Think about it. Having the drug companies fund they own research into new drugs is like hiring a fox to guard your hen-house. Since the payoff is so great, can you really trust them to get it right? Or, when the next new drug turns out to be a disaster, will you find a very, very rich fox with feathers on his snout?

tl;dr version:

1. health insurance itself.
2. doctor and hospital greed.
3. government overregulation.
4. medical lawsuits & lawyers.
5. Federal Govt. healthcare programs.
6. conflict of interest in drug companies and medical device companies.

These 6 things have contributed to making health care unaffordable for most people in the USA today.

Get rid of these 6 things, and you will have done a lot of good towards making health care affordable again.

---

BOINC WIKI

So I understand, are you saying that other US citizens who receive any kind of payment or other benefit from the state or federal government are stealing from you?

Only when the people who fund it aren't the ones who voted it in.

---

to explain democracy... When we vote and fail to win we accept the winners as the rule. We can vote later to remove or change the law we dont like but we as a society accept what the majority has voted in.

although we originally accepted slavery and no civil rights for minorities including native Americans. These are just 2 examples where the minority won even though the majority was against or didn't care about it.

so saying that you think people are stealing from you because of gov't programs because you didn't vote for it or you don't like it is, to be kind, dumb. Heck I don't like our Gov't handing money out to Major corporations. I really hate seeing Corporations getting handouts Period. but our system allows Corporations to suckle on the Gov't teat making individual welfare recipients look pretty sweet by comparison. Yes I don't like it and yes I rail against a "capitalistic" corporation taking handouts. Fail, don't fail, pay your tax burden but don't ask for a handout. Its a shame we scream when a mother of 6 gets handouts, yet she never mentions in her bottom line that she's a capitalist. She's just trying to survive the best she can.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

So I understand, are you saying that other US citizens who receive any kind of payment or other benefit from the state or federal government are stealing from you?

Only when the people who fund it aren't the ones who voted it in.

I think you may have some confusion on how the Federal Government creates and funds programs.

All programs are created by what is called "authorizing legislation". This is the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, which (among other things) creates the program, states the intent and objectives, and designates the department secretary in the Executive Branch that is responsible for running the program. Many programs have a "sunset clause", meaning that after X number of years, Congress must vote to reauthorize the program in order for it to continue.

There's one thing authorizing legislation does not have: money. In order to provide funding for any program, Congress must pass, and the President must sign, a separate appropriations bill that provides the funding for the federal departments. No appropriation, no money. No money, the program is an empty shell. Congress controls the purse. Congress can kill a program anytime simply by not funding it.

The Federal Government budget is for one year. This means that every single dollar that is being spent right now - today - was appropriated by the sitting Congress. Our elected representatives voted for it (along with about 5,000 goodies for themselves) wrote the check, and the President signed it.

---

Join the PACK!

So I understand, are you saying that other US citizens who receive any kind of payment or other benefit from the state or federal government are stealing from you?

Only when the people who fund it aren't the ones who voted it in.

I think you may have some confusion on how the Federal Government creates and funds programs.

I have no such confusion. I am well aware of the methods of theft which are used to steal from the tax payer. I believe some of those methods presently used to be against the natural laws and the unalienable rights of man.

Or was your confusion in not realizing I meant who votes for the representatives in our republican form of government and not how those representatives vote.

All programs are created by what is called "authorizing legislation". This is the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, which (among other things) creates the program, states the intent and objectives, and designates the department secretary in the Executive Branch that is responsible for running the program. Many programs have a "sunset clause", meaning that after X number of years, Congress must vote to reauthorize the program in order for it to continue.

One wishes that there were real effective sunset clauses ...

There's one thing authorizing legislation does not have: money. In order to provide funding for any program, Congress must pass, and the President must sign, a separate appropriations bill that provides the funding for the federal departments. No appropriation, no money. No money, the program is an empty shell. Congress controls the purse. Congress can kill a program anytime simply by not funding it.

The Federal Government budget is for one year. This means that every single dollar that is being spent right now - today - was appropriated by the sitting Congress. Our elected representatives voted for it (along with about 5,000 goodies for themselves) wrote the check, and the President signed it.

You seem confused. You have part one about laws that sunset after many years and you have part two about a budget that is one year. Which is it?

Last I checked the budget was used only for discretionary items, the real stuff was in multi-year appropriations. The only item that is time limited is:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Anything else they can fund until the cows come home, and frequently do. e.g. Starting in 2005 at ten billion dollars and increasing 5% a year for the next twenty five years.

Perhaps your confusion is on how the budget is built. Step one is they must line item include every multi-year appropriation. Congress simply can't refuse to include something a prior Congress has voted and the President signed. To not fund it, they would have to change the prior law. While I'm not a Congressional parliamentarian I believe that couldn't be done in an appropriation bill, but would have to be a separate act.

Now if the prior act just set up a framework but didn't fund it, well then of course Congress can put in a zero amount, but I believe that it still has to appear as a line item.

---

We are technically a democratic republic.

About funding and sunset clauses. Each program must be funded annually. If they aren't funded the program is dead. A sunset clause puts a limit to the number of years the Program can run without being reevaluated and reinstated. Funding and sunsetting are not the same thing.

The US gov't does not set funding beyond the current year. Each year a bill must pass for appropriations for each cabinet of the Executive branch as well as congressional/judicial spending. We don't hear much beyond military and social services spending bills because in all honesty the other offices just aren't all that glamourous. Though you may recall a year or so ago the Ag. bill was hotly contested because farmers wanted their subsidies(gov't handout/farmer welfare)

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I have no such confusion. I am well aware of the methods of theft which are used to steal from the tax payer. I believe some of those methods presently used to be against the natural laws and the unalienable rights of man.

Fair enough. I agree to simply disagree.

BTW, I completely agree that mechanisms such as sunset clauses, pilot programs, and other methods to determine if a program actually works should be used more.

---

Join the PACK!

The US gov't does not set funding beyond the current year. Each year a bill must pass for appropriations for each cabinet of the Executive branch as well as congressional/judicial spending.

Can't find any such limitation in the Constitution:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Nothing about a limit on the number of years for an appropriation here. Nothing about each cabinet here. Nothing about the different branches of government here. Not even a requirement for there to be a budget!

Just where are those limits set down?

---

The US gov't does not set funding beyond the current year. Each year a bill must pass for appropriations for each cabinet of the Executive branch as well as congressional/judicial spending.

Can't find any such limitation in the Constitution:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Nothing about a limit on the number of years for an appropriation here. Nothing about each cabinet here. Nothing about the different branches of government here. Not even a requirement for there to be a budget!

Just where are those limits set down?

Each year, the Congress comes up with a budget for the current year. That is hard enough, and they do not fund anything past the current year. This is true whether it is in the Constitution or not.

Oh, yes, remember that there is a crunch to get the Federal Budget done in the Fall? That is because the Congress keeps getting behind and the fiscal year kept slipping a little later in the year. The Budget completed in the fall of 2009 was for FISCAL YEAR 2009. The crunch to get the budget done in the fall of 2009 is NOT for the fiscal year 2010 (although it is mostly for calendar year 2010).

---

BOINC WIKI