A better analogy to serfdom is the employer-based healthcare system. Prior to "Obamacare," if you were employed and insured by your employer, but had a serious ongoing medical condition, then your worst nightmare was losing your job and needing to find insurance on the private market. If you were in that position, you'd endure no end of indignity and abuse in order to keep from losing your job, and then being classified as someone with a "pre-existing condition," i.e., someone who is uninsurable.

You would also pass up an opportunity with a better upside, such as starting your own business or leaving your job for additional training or education, if it meant losing your health insurance. This was a huge drag on or economy.

Employer-based health care is a mess, and I say this as an employer.

Croc, under Serfdom you don't have a CHOICE, just like Barack Hussein Obamacare! Working for an employer I have a choice to go on their plan, buy my own, or not take any insurance.

While I can feel for people with pre-existing conditions, the cost is passed on to the rest of us. I believe there is a way to insure them, but just forcing the cost onto the rest of us is just as unfair.

And that includes the costs that employers are paying.

@Anti... We could easily shift the cost back upon those that make less than good personal decisions(smoking,obese...) and could lower the cost for those that make 'better' personal decisions. Yet significantly more difficult, how do you propose we finance/handle those maladies that do not appear to have a high correlation to personal choice(breast or brain cancer, genetic disorders, birth defects....)

Jay, I have yet to hear a way of adding pre-existing coverage to health insurance that is fair to everyone. I am sure there is a way, just haven't heard it or thought of it. I am not willing to pass the burden of some onto everyone, especially, as you brought up, people that made the choices that led to their current condition.

Anti - hope you never get cancer - I got melanoma - less than 1cm - I am now uninsurable - do you even know how insurance premiums are set? The larger the risk pool the less it costs for EVERYONE. Hope any of your loved ones never get sick - sounds like you would kick them to the curb.

Actually Ann, the larger the risk pool also means more people that have pre-existing conditions. Again, the problem is that the cost of an expensive treatment is passed on to EVERYONE in the pool. Insurance companies have the choice of raising EVERYONE'S insurance to cover the problem, or taking the higher risks out of the pool.

As I have said before, I have faith that there is a way that is fair for everyone to insure people with high risks and pre-existing conditions, I just have yet to hear it!

Obama has literally made us an offer we can't refuse.

Mike S, a good percentage of that $2.7 isn't treating patients. It, like my $6,000 in premium payments in 2011, is pure profit. Personally, I'd rather have that money growing interest in a national health care fund to actually take care of people and manage an honest system that is free of a middleman with its corporate hand out.

Bren, you think your 6,000 went straight to the board of Director's pocketbooks?
150 of it went to pay for those two doctors visits you made last year.
30 of it went towards 1/500th my father's heart surgery.
25 of it paid for 1/10000th of a very expensive chemotherapy treatment.
100 if it paid for 1/10th of an emergency room visit for a broken leg.

Hopefully your getting the idea!

Anti, you are now defending a "middleman?" Isn't a direct supply chain better for business? That's what I learned, with very few exceptions. Health insurance is a perfect example of the middleman as parasite.

It will be very interesting to see how the 80/20 law shakes out. We shall see what the actual profit margin is. Most of us have to deal with office co-pays, out-of-pocket, deductibles and the dreaded U&C (Usual and Customary) charges in addition to our premium payments. (U&C is what the insurance company will pay based on what they call a regional and/or national average of pricing--their call. The doctor charges what he likes and the patient must pay the difference). Anti, last year my doctor visits weren't covered because my deductible wasn't met (my company had very high rates last year because of multiple major illnesses over the past three years--everybody paid more). And those visits were $250 each, not $75 as you estimate. Coding tricks by medical clinics and declination as a standard practice of insurance companies (stall/evasion) keeps patients getting poor value for money paid and the volume of negotiation at the entry-level. Profits are very high indeed.

Yes, it will be interesting to see the insurance companies scrabble to explain themselves when 80/20 comes into effect. I worked for a major health insurance carrier for a number of years, Anti. Hopefully you're getting the idea?

This article fails to see the big picture that eliminating denial for pre existing conditions, mandating an extraordinary expensive plan,with smaller penalty for not buying will lead to healthy people ouside of employer based insurance not getting insurance, then rates spiral upwards until insurance companies just give up. It is designed to screw things up o the point a government option will be needed and supported,leading to eventual takeover by government. We can't manage to reform current failing entitlements, this new one will be even worse to control once we are all on it.

I call it what it is. It is a plan to painfully push us to single payer government healthcare. They do not even have clue how to pay for the plan they have now with the ridiculously low estimates of numbers of employers that will drop coverage. It is a plan that steals $500 billion from Medicare. If successful leaves us with no support to seriously deal with our financial issues. It dooms the country to fiscal crisis, so the left can rule over the decline and force a soft tyranny.

Instead, we should go back to the everyone pays their own bill as they utilize services model, much like things were before the 1960's. "In 1950, the country spent less than $100 a year — or $500 in today’s dollars — on the average person’s medical care, compared with almost $6,000 now, notes David M. Cutler, an economist who wrote a wonderful little book in 2004 titled, 'Your Money or Your Life.'" As a great New York Times article from 2006 sums it up - give people the choice between spending their money on a longer life or more stuff, as that's what true freedom is really all about!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/business/27leonhardt.html

@Hoffa - in order for people to use a pay-as-you-go system for preventative care like routine doctor visits and blood work, we need transparency in pricing. But what happens in the event of cancer or a serious car accident? Using a pay-as-you-go model would bankrupt too many families. I guess I'm asking for a definition of your "services model." Thanks!

The HSA, Health Savings Account, programs were a step in the right direction. Combine a high deductible insurance policy with an HSA and if you stay healthy, the money is yours. A program like this provides incentive for people to take care of themselves, but covers them if they do have a problem. HSAs major drawback would be if you had an ongoing medical condition, but that is resolved with a lower deductible policy and a higher premium. More the traditional route.

Insurance is all about mitigating uncertain financial risks. It has nothing to do with health. The pay-as-you-go model should work for routine items, up to a certain dollar amount(deductible). But, as Heather stated, one would need to know the costs of those items across all providers to make an informed decision.

A third party payer system for health services, paying the first dollar spent, is not 'health insurance', it's a 'maintenance contract'.

@Heather A -

People got into car accidents and were inflicted with cancer back then - and it bankrupted hardly anyone. While it was undoubtedly a financial hardship and may have consumed most if not all discretionary savings/income that a family may have had, they still managed to get by and made it work because:

1) the costs of care were drastically cheaper; and

2) hospitals and care providers were more willing to set up payment plans because people had more integrity back then and would actually pay their incurred bills. And when people didn't pay their bills, or couldn't because of death, the hospitals and care providers simply wrote off the uncollected debts on their taxes - and tax write offs by the hospitals and care providers is much better than a forced tax collection from everyone to force participation in a highly inefficient and ineffective system in my honest opinion.

The problem with people today is that they refuse to work if all their money will only be going for bare minimum necessaries and paying their medical bills because the government will provide all that without one having to work at all, thus most people have lost their sense of integrity / personal responsibility out of an erroneous sense of being entitled to luxuries no matter what their situation may be. A disgusting attitude in Hoffa's opinion.

@JRH -- One of the reasons a catastrophic illness or accident bankrupted few people back then is that back then you died. There were no years of expensive chemotherapy treatments for cancer. If the surgery didn't take care of it, you were dead within a short time. You didn't live on for years in PVS after an auto accident. If your heart gave out, there was no way of getting a new one.

@Randy1949 -

You're talking about advances in medical science and technology. Remember, similar advances also occurred between 1850-1950, but the price of care didn't go up as exponentially as what we've realized since health insurance became a dominant player in the picture, did it? You're trying to correlate without a proper foundation. Bottom line is that big insurance diverts too much money away from patient care, which drives the cost of health care up significantly - in reality, more than 500% of where health care costs would otherwise be.

Maybe if we only had insurance to cover catastrophic events instead of everything under the sun, the insurance system would be smaller, be exponentially more affordable, and make far more sense, wouldn’t it? Everything else can be paid for individually out-of-pocket. That's what true health care reform would look like!

@JRH -- I'm talking about expensive advances in medicine and technology. I agree with you that some of these things might not be so expensive if a lot of money weren't being siphoned off into profits for drug companies. hospitals and insurance companies. It almost sounds as if you're arguing for single-payer.

I agree that back when I had health insurance through a job, it covered only catastrophic events. Office visits were out of pocket, but they only cost about $30 for a specialist. Nowadays it's almost ten times that.

@Randy - $30 is the cost of the co-pay now for a visit to a specialist. When one of our kids had to have their tonsils out, it was $255 for a 15-minute visit to the ENT doc. Surgery was $7K and we were responsible for 20% plus a $25 co-pay and a $250 deductible. Without insurance, I don't know how the prices would adjust, but would love to find out.

I should clarify that $255 was the cost of the visit to the specialist, but we only paid the $30 co-pay. Sorry!

@Randy1949 -

Your blame on profit is comical and unsupported by historical realities. Health care providers have always profited from rendering their services, as they reasonably should. Yes, I do advocate for a single payer system - every individual pays their own way as they utilize the services. Those who wish to purchase catastrophic insurance may freely elect to do so by their own choice, but it shouldn't be mandated. And if you choose not to purchase such insurance and can't afford to pay for catastrophic care, then you shouldn't get treatment. Pretty simple. What you fail to grasp is that if everyone actually paid their bills for menial and/or preventative care, catastrophic coverage would be super affordable.

When I go to the doctor, I'm often able to negotiate a cash payment that's over 500% less than what the cost would otherwise be going through an insurance provider. Outrageous costs come from assuming that insurance in the preferred way to pay for health care services. That and the loss of the integrity / personal responsibility of many to actually pay their bills because of the erroneous sense of entitlement to luxuries that government benefits have cultivated over the last 50+ years.

Perhaps we need to return to the original design of health coverage insurance, namely a major medical type of system. Have a strict out of pocket limit of $2000 for the year, no co-pays, no lab work, no prescriptions. People that feel they need to run to the doctor for every boo-boo can simply pay out of pocket at a lower, truly competitive cost!

@Hoffa -- Surely you must acknowledge that profit enters into the high price of prescription drugs. And with as much as 35% of insurance premiums going into 'administrative costs' while Medicare can do the same for 3-5%, there's some excess profit going on there too.

As a homeowner, I'm sure you carry insurance that would cover your losses in the case of your house burning down or being damaged otherwise. Health insurance should be like that, and it shouldn't cost $10K a year even for catastrophic.

You're right -- we don't expect the homeowner's insurance to pay for mowing the lawn.

Healthcare administration costs in Canada(National Health Care) run about 10%, in the USA it is about 28%. MedicAid in the USA runs at about 10% administration costs.

Can anyone explain why Medicaid and Canada NHC systems administration costs are 10% and Medicare does it for 2-3%.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033

The insurance mandates aren't quite the same. If one does not exercise their driving privileges, they aren't mandated to buy insurance. Home insurance is the bank's way of protecting their investment. It is mandated as a condition of the loan agreement. If one doesn't take out a loan, they don't need to carry insurance. There is no way of escaping the mandate of buying health insurance.

The level of 'socialism' that we choose to accept is also voluntary to some extent. If we live in rural areas, we don't have the government providing garbage removal, roads, water, sewage, etc. We aren't mandated to have those services and can choose to live in an area where we don't have to pay taxes to support them.

I guess I see it as a matter of how much choice we have in the matter.

The law does not require you to have either a car or a mortgage.

CowDung covered this one! That's why Hoffa lives in an extremely rural township with his own well and septic. Hoffa's property taxes on an assessed value of $165k is currently $920/yr for everything, including the public school levy. Granted, Hoffa has to drive his own trash to the dump, but for the savings in comparison to living in a more urban setting - it's a no brainer! Not to mention that the township Hoffa lives in is completely unzoned and has the lowest amount of ordinances and municipal codes that one can find today. As you can tell, Hoffa values his freedom and takes practicing it seriously!

We the People entered into a covenant with each other (the Constitution) to maintain a government structure that worked to the benefit citizens, including the right to vote (admittedly those early citizens were white males). Those who slept through their academic careers might mistakenly believe that tyrannical "power" forces people to do its will, but most reasonable people understand the basics of our government and realize that its foundation were laid centuries ago.

Bryant, why are Republicans calling to repeal their own vaunted answer to a national health care plan? 98% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance now (well above the national average) thanks to Mitt Romney's "individual mandate."

Please explain how it is now "unconstitutional." Were Republicans trying to perpetrate an unconstitutional act against the American people back then? I would honestly appreciate a rationale on this one.

All citizens, through taxes, pay for roads. Even in rural areas, property taxes still go to the counties and the municipalities to pay for roads and schools and let's not forget national transportation initiatives like expressways.

We need a health care solution, to be sure. I don't know what that is, but I agree with Hoffa about needing some type of policy to cover catastrophic illnesses while perhaps paying one's own way for more routine, preventative care. Again, we'd need transparency in pricing for that to happen.

@Bren -

Again, you're confusing the powers expressly granted to the federal government vs those expressly granted to the individual states. Did we really need to reaffirm the separation of powers concept that was written into the federal constitution yet again? The states have infinitely more power to govern their people than the federal government does, at least according to the express language of the federal constitution and until this bogus SCOTUS ruling that re-purposes taxes. How many more times will it take before you start to understand the distinction?

Mr. Hoffa, you do understand how individual states are empowered under the Constitution, don't you? The federal Constitution is the root of all law in this country (hence the enactment of a federal currency, etc.).

Also, I appreciate your desire to explore rural freedom (and hope that doesn't include an outhouse.).

@Bren... Let us cast aside that pesky document called the Constitution, for only a brief moment if you will, for a reality interlude:

None of the financial or healthcare objectives that were the stated intent of Romney-care were achieved;costs are higher than planed;they increased at a more rapid rate than the rest of the USA;emergency room usage is ++UP++ not down;no discernible increase in average health conditions occurred across Massachusetts.

@Heather A -

Most transportation projects are conducted by the states and localities - not the federal government. And when the federal government actually became involved in sponsoring and funding transportation projects, the original intent was that it was going to be only to the extent of a user funded system, as opposed to a subsidized system.

States and local level governments were constitutionally set up to be more socialistic in nature, as the founders believed that social programs would best be controlled, implemented for efficiency and effectiveness, and that the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse, would all be greatly reduced if such was done closer to the people, and thus be more accountable to the people. They also saw such separation as a way of preserving individual freedoms and personal liberties.

Remember, the founders were scared of top-down absolute centralized power, and the corruption that was so commonly associated with such structures throughout history, which is why they limited the powers of the federal government as they did. Over time though, the federal government has procured more and more powers that were originally within the sole province of the states and localities. The new SCOTUS precedent has yet again greatly expanded the centralized powers of the federal government, while decreasing individual freedoms and liberties.

Think of it this way - prior to Obamacare and the new SCOTUS ruling, states were free to experiment with health care however they wanted, as we witnessed in MA. Who's to say that another state wouldn't have found an even better solution in time, incorporating many of the reforms that we're discussing on this board? But now, that will never happen because the fed has spoken and the Court has upheld the fed's right to dictate in this area.

The bigger and more powerful the fed gets, the less we look America and more we start to look like the top down centralized governments that our founders feared.

Bren says =-====We the People entered into a covenant with each other (the Constitution) to maintain a government structure that worked to the benefit citizens

Of course our covenant emphasized the liberty of individuals. Included in that liberty was rights to propery. Our revolution led to us being able to establish our Constitution (why do you avoid that word Bren?) and the revolution was focused on TAXES and the government of England exceeding the restraints that English law had grounded in the Magna Carta and their Bill of Rights.

For two hundred and thirty years our system of freedom has allowed us to build the world's greatest country (and to establish the highest living standards for our "poor people"). It is our freedom that has made us the source of all innovation and scientific progress.

Socialism leads to slavery and misery.. Look at Greece.

►All citizens, through taxes, pay for roads. Even in rural areas, property taxes still go to the counties and the municipalities to pay for roads and schools◄

You barely pay for a road if you do not drive. Most transportation funds come from the tax on gasoline that is built into your total posted per gallon price. Property taxes go to other things, not roads.

So if you choose not to drive, you do not pay the road tax.

Obama care now fines (taxes) you for not using a product.
Walk into my store;
Heather would you like to buy a gallon of milk?
Heather: No I don't need milk today.
Me: Well then that will be a $3 fine er uh...... I mean tax.

@Steve - on the local level, your property taxes very much do pay for roads. Witness Mount Pleasant, which cut its roads budget from $4 million to $400,000 partly because property taxes revenues went down. So while gas taxes may cover roads on a regional or state level, the folks paving the street on which you live in your neighborhood work for you local municipality for the most part. Obviously, there are exceptions like County trunk highways, etc.

But you might need milk next week, and what about those that don't pay for their milk?

What part came form their local property taxes? Just because their local employees are doing the work doesn't mean the majority of the money came from property taxes. Most repaving work is contracted out, I wouldn't want my town to be in the road construction business as well. Simple maintenance only.

Road re-paving is a crazy quit of payment schemes. But generally the simple re-pave of 'local roads' (residential subdivisions) is 20% paid by the local municipality and 80% by the state, subject to some calculated maximum amount across a given period of time. State funding source for the 80% is the gasoline tax, local 20% source is the property tax.

Bren, the Constitution is the root of all FEDERAL law in the country. States are free to write whatever laws they want provided they do not conflict with the US Constitution and other Federal laws.

The US Constitution was written primarily to protect the states against invaders and against themselves. The Founding Fathers knew that if the states split up the alliance they made during the revolution, they could be picked off one by one. The smaller states also had a fear of some of the larger more powerful ones. Congress was meant to keep the states working together for the common good. Remember Patrick Henry, "We must all hang together or we will all hang separately"?

Great response - if we don't have mortgage insurance we lose the mortgage on our house, if we don't have care insurance we pay a fine/tax. Get over it. You don't want health insurance - then don't go to the doctors, hospitals or pharmacy - stay at home and suffer. You can't have it both ways.

It may be a little more involved than that.

@Taoist -

You're right - insurance is the problem. But socialized health care is not the right answer.

TGFSW - Stay strong and firm against implementing Obamacare in Wisconsin and we'll all stand with you time and again!

Again, Huffa, this is not socialized medicine. This is a requirement to buy health insurance. Bryan is lamenting the end of employer-based health insurance, without realizing that that would be a net positive. Why? Probably because Mark Levin (the self-dubbed "Great One") told him so.

However, neither he, nor you, nor anyone, have explained how a mandate to buy health insurance equals socialism, or why, as he claims, the private individual insurance market will do anything besides flourish under the Affordable Care Act. You boys are too busy making political hay to be bothered with intellectual honesty, as usual.

The frick it ain't croc ... Why not have a free market 401k type system

You crack me up ...You boys are too busy making political hay to be bothered with intellectual honesty, as usual ...hahaha .. sounds like YOU

@Taoist -

And what exactly would you call a government that forces its citizens to do something, that would otherwise be voluntary, under the guise of being beneficial to the collective and under threat of penalty and/or additional taxation for non-compliance if not a component of socialist ideology?

I concur that the ACA constitutes little more than a windfall to the insurance industry. But insurance is little more than socialism in and of itself - collecting premiums from everyone to supposedly benefit the collective by spreading individual risk out over the collective. But like most forms of socialism, such a system winds up primarily benefiting those that are in charge of running the collectivist system to the detriment of the contributors.

That's why everyone should pay their own way as they utilize services. Insurance over one's health should only ever be offered for catastrophic events, and not be all encompassing as it currently is. Menial and preventative care should all be paid for by the individual person as they utilize services.

You may want to read my other postings on this board before criticizing my position!

Hoffa, insurance is one of the most miraculous inventions in human history. To rail against the insurance model, in general, is to wish for everyone's life to be more chaotic, vulnerable and insecure.

Are you that much of an ideologue, that anything that involves the word "collective" makes you flash the evil eye? I hope I never know what it's like to be so brainwashed.

Taoist -- I live in Waukesha county and like Hoffa am still on a well. We've been here for sixty years and didn't have much control over what kind of expansion happened around us. It would have been standing in the way of 'progress' you know. I really wish the McMansions had been built somewhere else, but the depleted water table affects my well too.

Actually, that's one thing I disagree with the President on - I think you, "Johnny Blade," should be able to put your money where your mouth is, and opt out. However, if you have opted out, then you should be refused medical treatment in all cases, unless you pay all of your back taxes up front. No emergency room, no EMT, not so much as a band-aid unless you've got cash in hand. That's what you want, right? Otherwise, you'd just be a "freeloader," right? Just a slug sucking up everyone else's money?

It's too brutal for most people, but I think that's the way it needs to be. If you want to opt out, then you should opt all the way out. Most people aren't that stupid, but I have a feeling that you're special that way.

@Taoist -

No medical treatment unless you pay your back taxes? Are you now claiming that the health care industry is quasi-governmental?

What's so wrong with just paying for services as you utilize them? And if you can't pay for the services, you don't get them - it's that simple. If you did that, then how would you be "a slug sucking up everyone else's money?" Why are you so tied to a socialist / collectivist approach (insurance) to paying for health care, as opposed to an individual / personal responsibility approach?

Eliminate insurance from the health care industry entirely except for catastrophic events. Everything else is individual pay as you go. Health care costs would be over 500% lower and the premiums for catastrophic coverage would be super affordable to even those making minimum wage!

But we can't do that because people like you view health care as a right as opposed to being a choice. Individual sovereignty be damned!

Hoffa - "What's so wrong with paying for services as you utilize them?"

Would you apply this logic to the police and fire departments as well? No, because that would be absurd. How about just junking our water and sewer systems as well, and forcing everyone to take care of their own? Or the same for electricity? All of these things could be done - we could be a happy individualistic society where the supreme good lies in never having to pay a dime for everyone else. Of course, that would be inefficient and petty, but all other virtues must be burned on the altar of ideological purity!

@Taoist -

Police and fire services are far different in scope than health care, aren't they? And actually, many departments have started implementing service fees for many non-emergency responses.

"How about just junking our water and sewer systems as well, and forcing everyone to take care of their own? Or the same for electricity? All of these things could be done - we could be a happy individualistic society where the supreme good lies in never having to pay a dime for everyone else. Of course, that would be inefficient and petty,…."

WRONG!

Living in a very rural township, Hoffa has his own well and septic for a 1,750 sq/ft home, 18x36 in-ground pool, a large barn, and a small outbuilding on 2.6 acres and pays only $920/yr in property taxes, including the public school levy. My sister lives in the City of Wauwatosa in a 900 sq/ft home on a 1/6 acre lot. She has no outbuildings and has to pay a monthly fee for her public water and sewage usage. The only additional public services that she receives that Hoffa does not is trash collection. But my sister's property taxes are $4,750/yr.

Sure looks to me like my private systems are more financially efficient than those found in the City of Wauwatosa, doesn't it? So where do you get off exactly?

BTW - Hoffa hopes to soon be off the grid as well!

You really need to lay off Paul Krugman - he's warping your brain!

All my back TAxes?? WTF does that have to do with it .. This really cracks me up, i try and do the right thing, take individual responsibility for my own health care .. and these collectivists by force say i am not doing the right thing, that i am stupid ... YOU are what is WRONG with America .. no individualism just pure life stifiling collectivsim ... Do you not believe in Liberty

@Johnny Blade -- Even your goddess Ayn Rand decided 'collectivism wasn't so bad after all after she'd smoked herself into lung cancer and needed that Medicare. So much for personal responsibility.

My goddess Ayn Rand .. WTF r u talking about .. So if i can't steal from you, cuz i need whatever, why can the Government Steal from me?? I thought this was a free society, but i guess not

Hoffa, thank you for so elegantly expressing the extreme pathology of the ideological individualist. While it's possible for one person to be self-sufficient, if you extend those modes and methods of basic service delivery to an entire society, it's massively inefficient. You're advocating for extreme inefficiency, and the corresponding blow to our international competitiveness, in service of your single-minded ideology.

This is why we have such maddeningly inefficient systems in this country (power delivery, water delivery, public transportation, health care, etc., etc) compared to what's being done around the world. The short-sightedness and spitefulness of extreme ideological individualists, who'd rather go off and play with themselves than contribute to a well-functioning social infrastructure.

Johnny Blade -

Yes, all of your back taxes. The penalty for failing to buy health insurance is a tax. You don't want to buy health insurance, and I'm assuming that you don't want to pay the tax. I'm saying that you should be free from doing either, but then if you have a change of heart and want some health care that you haven't paid for (like a freeloading slug), then you should have to pay your back taxes (penalties that you haven't paid for not buying health insurance) up front. Isn't that fair? If you're so sure that you don't, and never will, need health insurance, then I don't see why you won't just nut up and put your life on the line.

As a side note, people like you, who can't seem to follow a string of two coherent thoughts, are the real problem with our country. That's why I'd be perfectly happy letting you opt all the way out.

Also, just FYI, you'd look really cool riding a motorcycle with no helmet, texting, and smoking cigarettes. I strongly encourage you to do all of those things at the same time.

@Taoist -

So, according to you, the reason that Wauwatosa's public services cost so outrageously much compared to where I live is because there aren't enough people contributing to the costs of those services? REALLY?!?! Hmm... let's see, according to the 2010 census, the population of Wauwatosa is 46,396 over a 13.2 sq/mi area vs the population of the Township where Hoffa lives is 1,202 over a 35.8 sq/mi area. No, I definitely don't think that the number of people contributing to the public services has anything to do with their efficiency, as your theory claimed, otherwise, wouldn't Wauwatosa's be significantly cheaper than where Hoffa lives?

Not to mention that Hoffa's public school district is consistently rated among the very best in the state and has a 99.8% graduation rate. While Tosa does have good schools, they don't come close in comparison.

The proof is in the pudding, and your bread pudding is extra runny!

"The short-sightedness and spitefulness of extreme ideological individualists, who'd rather go off and play with themselves than contribute to a well-functioning social infrastructure."

Umm... I've already proven that the social infrastructure is not well-functioning and is apparently extremely inefficient. Who in their right mind would want to contribute to such ineptitude and waste?

In Taoists ideal world, everyone would live in communal high-rises in cities and contribute 70% or more of their wealth in taxes because government is a more effective and efficient spender of those dollars than the individual, right?

So, when's the pilgrimage to pay homage to Lenin's preserved corpse?

Hoffa,

True to form, your rhetorical exercise doesn't "prove" anything, but you're happy to claim that it does.

Densely populated areas, with sophisticated service and utility delivery systems, are the only way that the majority of the world's people will ever enjoy modern conveniences like safe, clean water. That is a simple fact, based on basic economics, that even you should be able to understand. You can ignore it, or make a big show of "proving" how economies of scale don't apply, but you're only fooling yourself.

As far as comparing two communities, their respective costs and service levels - don't make me laugh. You admit that the cost of installing and maintaining your private well and septic tank is borne by you alone - and then you compare your property taxes to someone else who is paying for those as public services. You also admit to living in a very rural area, which means that you certainly lack sidewalks, and probably some paved roads. I'll take Tosa over your "rural area" any day, especially when it comes time to sell my house - property values have been much more stable in Tosa than in the sticks, because the quality of life is so much higher. Try comparing apples to apples, instead of assuming that all of the right-wing zombies on Patch are too stupid to see through your false equivalence.

@Taoist -

Hoffa is providing a concrete real world comparative example. You're the one espousing the lofty rhetorical nonsense.

Yep, no sidewalks - which means less public easements on private property than in "densely populated areas," which equates to stronger private property ownership rights/freedoms! But we do have something called 'shoulders' that run along both sides of the roads, and they're not nearly as expensive to construct or maintain vs concrete sidewalks. We even have bicycle paths!

So, your new theory is that the quality of life is better in densely populated areas than in rural areas - I'm sorry, I just fell out of my chair from laughing so hard!

Let's see densely populated areas by general comparison have dirtier air, dirtier and/or chemical treated water supplies, more physical environmental litter, higher crime, more noise, poorer performing public school districts, significantly higher costs of living, traffic congestion, … the list of negatives is quite literally endless. And yet, you still try to claim that "the quality of life is so much higher" vs rural areas, while citing to no empirical or statistical evidence to support such a theory. Yeah, that really makes perfect sense all right!

Try again!

Hoffa, I'll just cite property values. The market isn't all-powerful, but one thing it does well is tell us which communities are desirable places to live, and which aren't.

@Taoist -

Yeah, because property valuations were always dead on accurate, right? What happened with the so-called real estate bubble again back around late 2007/2008....

The only thing this proves is that most people are stupid and overly needy when it comes to social reliance, or in other words, they constantly need to be near other people. Personally, I like the America that allows one to stretch their arms without banging into someone else.

Ever hear of Frederick Turner? Well, he was a historian. About a hundred years ago he came up with a theory about the frontier. He said the frontier was a safety valve for civilization, a place for people to go to keep from goin' mad. So, whenever there were folks who couldn't fit in with the way things were, nuts, and malcontents, and extremists, they'd pack up and head for the frontier. That's how America got started - all the crackpots and troublemakers in Europe packed up and went to a frontier which became the thirteen colonies. When some people couldn't fit in with that, they moved farther west, which is why all the nuts eventually ended up in California. Turner died in 1932, so he wasn't around long enough to see what would happen to the world when we ran out of frontier. Some people say we have the frontier of the mind, and they go off and explore the wonderful world of alcohol and drugs, but that's no frontier. It's just another way for us to fool ourselves. And we've created this phony frontier with computers, which allows people to, you know, think they've escaped. A frontier with access fees? What about space? You know, the final frontier! Ah, Star Trek isn't space. That's television - fine frickin' frontier that is. Besides, how many folks can just pack up and go to space?

@Taoist -

Funny, as you seem to advocate pumping the most money and pubic resources into areas with very low property values, but that doesn't seem very efficient, does it?

So, what gives?

Hoffa,

What gives is that I want this country to get out of the hole that Republican politicians and policies have put us in. The idea that we can keep our infrastructure from falling apart, provide a degree of social security that compares to the rest of the modern world, and pay down our debt without raising revenues is a dangerous fiction.

Look at this dope "Johnny Blade" - he actually believes that taxation is theft, and has no place in our society. That's the dark place that the Randian rabbit hole leads. He has no basis for judging good or bad public expenditures, because he's had it drilled into his head that they're all bad.

Face facts - privatization of everything, abandoning public education, abandoning public utilities, abandoning the idea that investing in Americans is worthwhile; this is radical right-wing social engineering. Excuse me if I'd rather move this country more in the direction of Germany than Pakistan.

@Taoist -

You didn't explain in your last diatribe how throwing tons of public monies into places that you admit are undesirable to live in is at all an effective or efficient use of those public funds.

I'm still waiting for the explanation on your hypocritical inconsistency…

Oh, I don't think it requires any explanation. I don't see any point in, for example, paying to send lake Michigan water to Waukesha. The watershed for one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world is a few miles away, and you decide to build your McMansion in a swamp? Don't expect the rest of us to squander our precious resources on you; drink your radon and STFU.

@Taoist -

Republican policies got us here? That's funny - I could have sworn that it was Clinton who signed NAFTA and gave China preferred nation status. He was a Democrat, wasn't he? And that guy in the White House now, he's a Democrat also, isn't he? Didn't he promise us that stimulus, health care, etc, or in other words Democratic policies, would drop unemployment below 8%? It's been over 3 years since all that, but the unemployment rate is still above 8%. So, what gives? The last time we saw something similar was under Democrat Jimmy Carter. And what happened after Reagan took over the show? Unemployment decreased to near 'full' employment levels, didn't it?

Looks like history is working against you on this point, doesn't it?

Try again!

Hoffa,

Do you even understand what point you're trying to make anymore? This recession started under Bush Jr., and the economy tanked right before he dished it off to Obama. Bush also slashed revenue and started 2 wars, exploding the deficit. These are facts; we all lived through that nightmare.

And let me say it for you - "There you go again, blaming Bush..." Yes, because Bush and the Republican zeal for deregulation TORCHED this economy, and the "temporary" tax cuts (originally designed to give back Clinton's surplus, instead of pay down the debt) have exploded the debt. Seriously; do you really think that Democrats are such dramatically better leaders than Republicans, that they should have cleaned up the entire mess in less than 4 years? In the face of an unprecedented temper tantrum from Congressional Republicans? That's what I hear when you claim "This is Obama's economy."

You're seriously crying about the President not cutting unemployment by a few percentage points, when your guy nearly brought down the global economy? Do you have any idea how disconnected from reality that makes you sound?

@Taoist -

"Oh, I don't think it requires any explanation. I don't see any point in, for example, paying to send lake Michigan water to Waukesha. The watershed for one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world is a few miles away, and you decide to build your McMansion in a swamp? Don't expect the rest of us to squander our precious resources on you; drink your radon and STFU."

The burden to pay for the project upon which you're referencing is limited to the taxpayers that will be benefiting from it - not the collective as a whole as you erroneously purport it to be. So, what's wrong for the people that made such decisions to be ultimately paying for those decisions exactly? It's called taking personal responsibility for one's actions.

And for the record, Hoffa doesn't live in Waukesha County. Hoffa's well water is more than brilliant.

Again, it would appear that you're a huge advocate of Soviet style urban residential living. Well, enjoy your communal high-rise - just don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize it!

Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my clean air, clean chemical free water, no grid lock, no noise, crime free, relatively inexpensive, peaceful and serene lifestyle!

Cheers!

BTW -

The property values of those so-called McMansions in Waukesha County suggest that it is a very desirable place to live, according to your logic, correct? So wouldn't it make sense to invest public resources in such desirable places to live?

Again, you still haven't explained why you advocate investing so many public resources into such undesirable places to live such as many neighborhoods in the City of Milwaukee, City of Racine, etc? Why invest so many public dollars into such undesirable places to live? This seems highly illogical and an inefficient and ineffective use of the public treasure, doesn't it?

@Taoist -

When did I ever defend Bush? Bush wasn't the greatest, but he wasn't the worst either. If Bush's deregulation, wars, and tax breaks are what truly caused our situation, as you suggest, then why didn't Obama just re-regulate everything, end the wars, and stop the tax breaks, just as he promised he would do during his campaign? After all, he could have easily done all of those things when the great Democratic Party controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Then, the economy would have been fixed, right? And you wouldn't have been able to blame an obstructionist Republican House. But Obama didn't do that - why? Looks like Obama's a traitor to the Democratic cause if what you're saying is all to be believed, right? So, who's your candidate in 2012 exactly, as it can't be Obama, right?

To ignore Clinton's hand in the current state or our economy is a huge error and fatal flaw in your analysis. What Clinton did was 100 times worse than anything that GW Bush did. But keep on denying it and listening to the propaganda espoused over on the Daily Kos, while enjoying your life in the communal high-rise. Hoffa prefers to enjoy as much FREEDOM as he can when he has it / while it lasts.

@Taoist -

I believe my points are clear and come to the inevitable conclusion that you are hypocritical, inconsistent, can't defend your points with reality, and have no idea what you're talking about.

Have fun watching Ed Schultz tonight!

Hoffa,

You're really all over the map with this one; try to think in a straight line. My point is, and has always been, that it makes sense for citizens to pay for those public goods that they expect and receive, and that a high property tax bill typically corresponds to a higher level of service delivery and higher, or more stable, property values. You're the one making the case that individuals are better off without the corrupting influence of public goods and services, and I won't pretend to understand your "reasoning."

I brought up the issue of Waukesha needing Milwaukee water because I think it's hilarious that this conservative enclave of big crappy houses is built on a swamp, and their water is poisonous, and now they want to tap into the region's most valuable natural resource in order to prop up their fake and unsustainable lifestyles. Hilarious.

@Taoist -

How am I all over the map exactly? You're clearly outmatched by a superior intellect and can't handle the truth. The Daily Kos was wrong - so instead of crying over how you've been deceived by false propaganda and rhetoric, just give it up already!

Croc wrote: "This recession started under Bush Jr., and the economy tanked right before he dished it off to Obama..."

That was four years ago, Obama ran as the educated, enlightened leader with all the answers and all the promises. Four years later our unemployment is still above 8% (possible up to 14%), foreclosures are still happening at alarming rates, and we spending even more beyond our means.

Bush is gone, get over it!!!

Hoffa,

Outmatched by a superior intellect...? I'm sorry, but I don't give any Republicans credit for intelligence. Yours is the party that has a bone to pick with science, and that can't seem to get its head around the fact that the President is a US citizen.

A basic sign of intelligence is following the facts and evidence where they lead, even when that takes you someplace uncomfortable. I have yet to meet the Republican who can digest the fact that our health care system is a failure, without lapsing into hyper-patriotism and xenophobia. I have yet to meet the Republican who has serious problems with the fact that the GOP can't elect leaders who believe in global warming or human evolution.

Intelligence? The manipulative rhetoric that's packaged and sold by Rush, Hannity, Levin and the rest gets parroted by the uncritical mind of the committed right-winger. So many examples... "Death Panels." Sarah Palin! Birthers!

Yes, I'll say it. I respect a lot of things about the conservative worldview, but this "get in line, never say a bad word about the GOP" stuff is just sickening. People of intelligence, and integrity, would never hang in there with a party that commits so many heinous acts of intellectual vandalism. Anyone who's still calling themselves a Republican in 2012, and isn't getting paid for it, gets no credit for intelligence from me.

@Taoist -

So typical - when you find yourself on the losing side of a debate, just launch into a liberal elitist anti- conservative / Republican rant and hope that no one notices. Yep, the Daily Kos crowd must be proud of you all right - you've perfected the strategy down to an art form. Good for you.

Huffer, so typical - you refuse to own up to your disgraceful coddling of the lunatics in your midst ("Johnny Blade," for example), drop the words "elitist liberal" and "Daily Kos," buck yourself up in the third person and rev up the propaganda mill. You're a caricature, but not the one you think.

@Taoist -

Really, thanks for the big laugh! You must be more from the Comedy Central persuasion than the MSNBC persuasion. Although, I'm willing to bet that Current TV and RT are your preferred news networks and you probably have a copy of Pravda delivered to the communal high-rise daily.

Hey Johnny -

I'm hiring, so if you want a job, make sure you fill out your application with incoherent gibberish so I know it's you. I'd love to have someone with your skills and intelligence in my organization.

Tansandy, the government was created by people. What that government could/should be was under much debate at the time.

@Lyle -

Hoffa could support a quasi-government instituted health care solution that provided catastrophic coverage so long as Medicare became an opt-in program and Medicaid was done away with for menial and preventive care. Everyone can and should directly pay their own way for menial and preventive care. A social safety net could be preserved wherein the government would provide low interest loans in the form of health care vouchers to those who couldn't afford even menial and preventive care, however, once rebounded, those people would have pay back those loans in full. Only the .55% of the population that are truly incapable of working or providing for themselves should be given full assistance at the expense of taxpayers. Fairness for all and compassion for the truly disadvantaged - the best of all worlds!

The Obamacare that the liberals are celebrating is only going to make things worse, as it all centers around more insurance, increased regulation, and taxes. This doesn't fix anything - it just makes things 10 times worse for a majority of the working class to pay for the health care of the working underclass. The focus should be on reforms that will lower costs. Obama's solution increases costs just to benefit a select demographic. This is single handedly the worse piece of legislation since NAFTA. Worse is how Obama and Dems LIE about it and act like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Only an idiot would be fooled.

A NHC plan would eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid as it would all be part of the system.

I don't think anyone is touting the Affordable Care Act as "the best thing since sliced bread" but it is a step toward wresting control of people's health out of the hands of a for-profit industry which I agree has corrupted the system.

One health care plan with coverage and justice for all. We can do this.

@Bren -

"... but it is a step toward wresting control of people's health out of the hands of a for-profit industry which I agree has corrupted the system."

Umm... actually, it does the exact opposite. Have you been paying attention at all? Try something other than the Daily Kos if you really need someone else to analyze the bill for you as opposed to doing it yourself.

And we already have a national universal solution - it's called everyone directly pays their own way for all menial and preventive care. Only catastrophic events should be 'insurable.'

Lyle,

I think where everything falls down on the "affordable healthcare as an inalienable right" argument, is that we are leaving out 1/2 the equation. If I'm a service provider of healthcare, how does someone else determine what affordable is? Is the market going to dictate what I'm worth, or the govt.? If the govt. does, are they doing it through coercion? What then...a union of medical providers that may choose to strike against an unfair contract...or do they then yield absolute political power, much like what you see in England?

We talk about this like it's a foregone conclusion that the service providers will still provide their services at whatever price a "single payer" system dictates it will. This is a false premise.

Divelbiss doesn't kill people, Schmitz, bad law and stupid government policy that involves death panels does that.

Do you have even a clue about what the much ballyhooed 'death panels' even were? They were payment for a doctor's time in which end of life decisions were discussed. As in,"Mr or Mrs. Patient, do you want me to keep you alive even if you're 91, comatose, and in pain? Or would you rather I keep you comfortable and let nature take its course?" This is appropriate medicine, done with patients and families all the time.

If anything is a true death panel, it is transplant committees that decide whether your situation and prognosis is worth wasting an available organ on you. Or insurance companies that decide that your procedure is 'experimental' or your next round of chemo is not worth paying for,

Let's all be up front and honest. Of course there are going to be "death" panels. It's even okay to admit it. Individuals and families have taken the cowards way out of being the correct "death" panel, and put it into a third parties control. If it's not the family, or the insurance company (the families payment proxy), it's going to be the govt. Somebody has to make the decision that care is just not appropriate or affordable at some stage. As horrible, and heartless as this sounds, it's a necessary evil.

Since individuals have given up the responsibility of paying, they lose the right to decide. It's a trade off that one should expect when you, as an individual, give away your responsibilities, others will make decision for you. It should be a given...and not just in end of life decisions. You can't afford to feed your children, you should not get to decide what they eat. Can't afford gas/electric, your thermostat should be controlled by others. Can't afford rent, where you live should be decided by others..

We agree completely! I believe strongly that you should have the freedom to throw your own life away, and I heartily encourage you to exercise it to the fullest - preferably BEFORE knocking up your girlfriend and saddling the rest of us with any more little idiots.

Here we have a great example of what happens when the insane rhetoric of the Tea Party finds a soft and confused mind. This guy actually thinks that all taxes are slavery; he's incapable of understanding the concept of public goods, because he's been trained to reject any taxation a priori. Consequently, he's incapable of being a citizen. So what does that make him? A consumer first, foremost, and solely. Nice work, conservatives!

OK .. Mao Tse Taosit ..When was the Income tax started?? .. So now you are a shill for the Banksters that ensalve us ... you are a piece of work

@Croc of TAo ..So the isane rhetoric of the FOUNDING FATHERS .. i think you are the confused mind, This guy actually thinks FORCED taxation is FREEDOM .. like i said Orwells 1984

Irrelevance AND paranoia. You're just setting the bar lower and lower...

Irrelevance my achin croc ... What was the income tax when our naton was founded?, or for the first 100 years? .. what was the income tax? ..It was freakin ZERO ... YOU r irrelevant with your BS theory of "the common good"

Johnny, I'm going to stop beating up on you. Your life is probably hard enough; I just can't imagine how warped your thinking must be if you're susceptible to birtherism.

And really, I know as well as anyone that without suckers like you in this world, those of us who succeed by virtue of our intelligence would have a lot tougher time. Still, my compassionate side hopes that you someday get your medication straight, or fish that crayon out of your brain or whatever, and figure out how to tell the truth from the fictions that pay everyone else's bills.

Your compassionate side .. That must be the side that thinks Forcing people by gunpoint or with jail time to "pay" for the common good .. i almost laugh typing it .. you have common good, yes good ... and this "good" comes about by FORCE, by forcing people to pay taxes .. I mean this is Orwells 1984 .. Un"freakin"real

Croc wrote: "Johnny, I'm going to stop beating up on you. ..."

Translation: You are making too many good points so I need to get out of here with the appearance of a victory.

Yeah, but he spelled it right.