TakeYouToTasker

So... You're willing to risk the delivery of medical care on a hunch that individuals in the medical field aren't profit motivated, but rather are monk like avatars motivated by pure altruism? Sounds a bit utopian, don't you think?

While simultainiously systematically making massive amounts of land uninhabitable by turning them into nuclear dumping sites.

They aren't going to become doctors. That's the whole point. Your plan will incentivize a decrease in health care providers, while at the same time increasing the demand for health care providers. When this occurs, the quality of care decreases, and access to care decreases. And this doesn't even begin to address other aspects of medical costs, such as R&D for new drugs and treatments. When you suck the profits out of an industry, you destroy that industry.

Massive amounts of doctors won't accept Medicaid, and the list is growing every sigle day. That's because reimbursement rates very often don't cover the cost of care. Under these circumstances, why in the world would you expect supply to increase? You think thousands of the country's best and brightest young minds will be lining up for 11 or more years of school and residency, living in relative poverty while doing so, working absurd amounts of hours, taking on crushing debt, for the ultimate reward of losing money and laboring under a massive bureaucracy which serves to limit the relationship between doctor and patient? That's an absurd thing to believe.

Again, you're free to be as big a fool as you'd like.

What they need to do is insure themselves before they become sick. That's how insurance works.

Well sure, if you believe you are entitled to make slaves of others in order to fund your wish lists via barrel of a gun force, sure. But, if you believe in the inherent value of freedom as the best condition for man, then your nothing but an immoral fascist, which you are.

My basis is that individuals should be free to make whatever decisions they want, poor or otherwise, and that the government should not legitimize poor decisions by forcing other individuals to subsidize the poor outcomes created by those poor decisions. What prevents someone from making the decision to purchase insurance prior to contracting a condition?

What, other than your own personal decision making, prevents you from acquiring health insurance prior to one of these "random events"? Also, spare me your "I've got a gun to your head" altruism.

Clearly not. He doesn't even know the search function.

Should home insurance cover houses that have already burned down prior to being insured?

They're probably looking at it as fewer income taxes collected.

I think you're confusing citizen with subject. And again, how are you not too embarrassed to show your face around here?

It is America, after all, so I suppose you're still free to be an ignorant loser. If I were you I'd be more hesitant to embrace it, however.

Again, it's just as stupid when you say it as when Meatbead does. Humor is supposed to be funny, not ignorant.

The clear absurdity is that one cannot logically expect to be protected by a moral philosophy which they are in the process of violating. An individual forfeits their rights while in the commission of the violation of the rights of another.

OK, Meathead.

You need to consider what sorts of taxes the Amendment was designed to collect at the time it was written, just as you need to view the text of the original document in the time it was written. The 16th was written in order that the government could collect taxes on interest, rents, and dividends in response to Pollock vs. Farmers' Loan & Trust.

Mmmm... Law, nor even Constitutional law, is the Constitution.

The power to tax is narrowly defined. The income tax doesn't stand Constitution rigor. Poor Wesley.

Quite.

His administration was informed by the prior eight years of the Presidency. Stop being partisan.

Actually, it isn't; which is why there is no law that says you have to pay your income tax. What was the purpose of your counter?

He seems like a reasonable enough individual, and more often than not, when people come to a logical conclusion on their own, they tend to be quicker to embrace it.

I was hoping to have him get to this conclusion on his own.