I don't understand why you think that the government won't reflect this disparity? It will only cover however much everyone pays for it, and will cost a ton of money to even just administrate. There's a limit on how much money can be spent, exactly like in a private business. The major difference is that government can monetize its debt! If things get too expensive for the government, it will pay the costs via proxy and thereby inflate currency itself.

I often wonder how many people realize that inflation is a form of taxation, and a sign of poor fiscal policy..

Somalia is not an anarchy in any form, it is a group of warlords fighting for dominance (and besides which, it's interesting that their current state of affairs is actually much better than it was 10 years ago). I don't understand the vapidity of these Somalia arguments that keep popping up. I'm not talking about some bullshit idealist system where all people are happy and do everything altruistically because they can.

I will agree to your bet, but you might as well be betting me that America will raise an army of pegasus and successfully conquer the world. For this bet to be honest, we need to decide on what constitutes HCR: if it involves more regulation and more mandates then I can guarantee you it will drive costs up. If it involves destroying the mandates and regulations giving private insurance forms of monopoly, then I will say it drives costs down. Again, I am all for reform if it involves freeing up the insurance market and see this as positive change.

Also, how about we make it 2 years rather than 5?

I think this is the crux of healthcare reform! We ought to be freeing up the system and making true competition possible.

No, that's actually just the typical form of government. Government is tainted by having government officials, politics, and special interests. Anarchy is the opposite of government, eg: free market.

There's nothing wrong with making money helping people get well. You're missing something important in your argument - people have choices, and are not corn being raised in the fields. If your doctor sucks, you find another and get educated about health (you might find that pharmaceuticals are mostly treatment rather than cure and going to the doctor is overrated by today's society).

If you also think that the government will help people stay healthy, just look at its record with the pharmaceutical industry(in case you did not know, they are very good pals and help each other profit). It is completely in the ethos and history of government to recommend pharmaceuticals above exercise and good diet, because they make money with pharmaceuticals! They stand to gain nothing when people take care of themselves.

Please, keep in mind that government wants to secure its own importance and money, and to grow as if it were actually creating something new.

I don't understand what you mean? On the one hand, Obama has not tried anything fiscally or economically sound, on the other hand neither have the Republicans for a very very very long time. Personally, I want what the Obama Administration does to fail simply because they keep trying to do stupid things in a weak way -- as soon as they support something rational I will support them in it. Your argument would appear to be anti-government corruption, and yet pro-Obama Administration? You just can't separate the two!

It's not fair to compare to private ensurers as they are now -- there is a clear corporatist slant to how Washington has operated for a long time, and frankly -- lobbyists from private insurance have put in a wealth of distortion on the market courtesy of the government. This particular situation highlights two things: the greediness of companies to ensure their own survival (a constant) and the corruption of government (another constant).

It's certain that more government intervention is going to both increase overall healthcare costs (via insurance costs) and drive overall healthcare quality down because that's what it always does and what it has been doing steadily.

True reform would not be imposing more restrictions, regulations, and bullshit state-invented rights -- it would be repealing what drives healthcare to be expensive in the first place (many many things).

I don't understand why a government, any government, would want information on the unique aspects of an acid that is found in my every cell... Why the fuck does the government -- an imperfect organization which by definition rules by force -- explicitly deserve an in-depth profile of my biologic basis? Even if it were voluntary -- imagine how easy it would be to pressure organizations into making it mandatory (raise the overall tax, give organizations which only employ Gene-mapped employees a tax break). I don't care what this student thinks is best, I DO care that the president of the USA agrees to no small degree.

This line sticks out like a sore thumb: "I am a supporter of free markets and capitalism, but at times we need the government." You are describing the problems of a corporatist, mercantilist market - not a free market (scientology only has power because they exploit the regulations to their advantage). Furthermore, you are implicitly equating markets with government, which are separate entities very often found intertwined (this is done by the government). "Many whine about having to pay a TV tax, but I gladly pay my monthly TV tax as it produces documentaries that ask hard hitting questions." -- Your willingness to pay for what you want is indeed fundamental to all people -- and is the basis of a free market (it is driven by human nature itself).

Yes, it is human nature to abuse absolute and arbitrary power (because it does not have a basis in a reality that a human can relate to). Critics of organizations like the NSA are not critics of security, they are critics of individual schmutzes making decisions on the behalf of a nation of people. It is not the place of government to protect the public from an imaginary threat. This article talks about the US planning to take down wikileaks, not for any concrete reason but only because the practice does not suit them!

Once something has been fully documented and around long enough to be successfully leaked, chances are it's not going to hurt national security (but will certainly hurt people in positions of power). Additionally, wikileaks exposes fraud and criminality above all -- it does not list security checkpoints and schedules of all airports or some such actual security-related issue.

As per your jab at simplicity - the principles of this situation are plain and clear, the interpretations can get as muddy as you would like.

PS: Governments DO keep secrets for the hell of it (just not all the time)-- because they can

The fact that a HUGE bubble was grown under Clinton's administration, with his blessing, ought to make you question the economic soundness of the US at that point. Any economic system with huge bubbles is unsound, the US economic system has encouraged them for a long time now.

Overall good points, but I don't think the Golden Rule is being considered with any significance. I would tend to think of it as a rule explaining a certain kind of emotional/psychological law. Someone who likes to cause harm feels harmed. Someone who expects you to make a fuss to get any attention feels that they won't get any attention unless they make a fuss. A boss who is always rushing you probably doesn't feel the importance/difficulty of his own work. While abstracting the rule for one's own benefit can work, that's an intellectual approach which probably won't have a direct effect on your behaviour, which is defined by your emotional state.

While I dislike asshole-debates as much as anyone, it's the crowd watching that's made the decision to watch. If you're the kind of person who like to watch assholes debate, go ahead. It seems nonsensical to put in place such rules. What does being polite have to do with making a point? If anything, the asshole screaming is announcing he is an asshole -- that should be taken into account. Consider early American debates -- there were often fistfights, death threats and occasional duels to the death.

That's a good point, but limited because communication and grammar are not necessarily connected. The fact that people are not using proper grammar may be a sign that the grammar itself is at flaw and that the structure is not supporting the needs of the language. There will be a point where the decay of language "bottoms out" and starts becoming something else. I don't know where it's going, but it's not a lack of discipline so much an overall change in consciousness.