In that way, selfish pricks could keep the relative pittance that they would save on paying into a universal one-payer system.

There are some rural areas that employ this meathod for the Fire Service.

If you pay a Fire Dept. "Subscription" then you get Fire/Medical service from the Fire Dept.

If you don't pay, the Fire Dept will respond to your housefire, guard the surrounding structures from catching fire and watch your house burn down to the basement.

I'm quite capable of lumping myself into categories, I suggest you not make assumptions and put me into them when you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a fan of Nixon or Reagan or Bush. So I'm not in that group. I also do favor smart, concise, clear regulation with sufficient damages to provide the necessary incentives. I believe in strong anti-fraud laws.

You're not hateful yet you hate people "like that". Wow you seriously wrote that? A nice contradiction in one sentence. That's impressive.

Disgusting is what I call stealing from people to pay for an involuntary, unproven plan with no cost analysis whatsoever.

Perhaps you are concerned that the plan would not work unless people were forced into participating. That raises even more concerns with me. If you think it's such a good idea, I will invite you to pay twice. Oh, you don't want to? How about I petition the government to throw you in jail if you don't pay twice? Oh, that's not fair? That's not the same?

You recognize the fact that I should have the choice by the fact I could not otherwise be compelled to participate in a crappy idea unless you had the weight and threat of government behind your plan. All the more reason why I consider it rotten from the start.

We have the ability to make it voluntary. But you don't even want to explore making it voluntary. You must be thinking it requires stealing in order to work.

Nomoreclintonorbush;

I had to bail out of this little chat yesterday but I have read your 15:51 post... I can't just let it go though I doubt you will respond as this is a dead thread now and we all have much redder meat what with last nights dog and pony show... Truth is, I tend to agree with much of what you said. Particularly what you say as related to item c. and d. The bit about selfishness not necessarily being unethical etc though, made me think of our old pal Gordon Gecko.... Yea, it was a movie.. Unfortunately some people, I suspect, thought it was a blueprint.. The reality is, greed is not good and selfishness is for the most part, an unethical position to defend. We can haggle back and forth over why that might or might not be. But, be that as it may, the truth is I think you and I share some similar perspectives on some things anyway. That said you will never sell me on the meme that old people should just be left to die because they are simply old... And this perspective of mine has nothing to do with trying to defend 'cutting them open just because we can'. I don't necessarily agree with using technology in that specific manner either. But your whole 'sucks to be old, guess its just time to die' perspective?.... Callous beyond all reason buddy. Where's your sense of humanity?? Ahh fuck that, I don't want to rant at you about that specifically...

Here's the thing, ya just can't lump an entire class of people into the dumpster just because... Pick you favorite old distasteful thorn in the side, ugly, ill, queer, lefty, rigthy, commie, capitalist, black, white, read all over etc. I know this may sound cliche or maudlin but I really believe it personally... Don't know who said it, but it rings true with me that what we as a people do to the least of us, how we treat them, or in this case the most aged of us, says a hell of a lot about what we amount to ethically as a species. When we treat any one of us in a manner less than how we ourselves would want to be treated in similar circumstances?? It diminished all of us. At that point, we are no better than the fucking nazi's or the commies or the fascists or name your favorite boogieman whipping boy dictator, who regardless of propaganda for or against the ideology did in fact kill millions under cover of authority for no better reason than they were 'different'... That much can't be denied, it's documented seven ways from sunday.. That pesky kodak thing. Just can't cover up the bodies and forget anymore like one could during the Attila the Hun days....Not with all those bloody photos. and doc movies and the internet and all the rest of it.....

Maybe I'm a clueless kool-aid drinker of another kind but I always thought growing up that the fact that we (Anericans) try to look out after our elders thru designed programs properly administered that ensured our aged didn't end up begging and dying in the streets after giving their best years in service to any number of private or public institutions in labor and sweat equity...Yea, they were gettin paid money but this society benefitted more from the their labors than they got by way of renumerations. That's just a common fact.. Most people who really helped build up this country didn't get rich making this country rich. So, after all that labor and sweat and dyin to build up railroads and roadways and all manner of infrastructure, we as a society made sure they had a 'golden years' to look forward to. It was a reward and a well deserved one I would add. And, I always thought those institutions and attitudes towards the least fortunate and the oldest left among us, made us that special place that was juuust a little better than the so-called godless commies and Hitlers mean old rat-zies, and all the rest of the tin-pot dictators I've seen come and go in just my lifetime.... And what you propose shitcans all that in favor of some hard-core Darwinian survival of the fittest bullshit taken to unhumane extremes. No, sir, I won't buy it and you will never sell me on that notion! We can' be any kind of 'shining city on a hill', we can't be saying ours is the best way, the most proper way of living if we are going to go down that road you advocate. It would be a lie and a hypocrisy of the highest order.

Each individual is it's own story, its own universe of possibilities regardless of age. What about Steven Hawking? The man is barely living in any sense you and I would understand, but he's a brilliant mind and I bet if you asked him to choose, he'd choose life. What would have been lost to our knowledge had someone applied your concept to the ill which would have lumped Mr. Hawking into that group to eliminate?? See the slippery slope what you advocate leads to yet?
We just start cutting old people loose ala Soyent Green, then what? And what of the potential wisdom? Institutional and historical knowledge and understanding that will be lost to the ages just because we let a stroke victim up and die when they could have been saved just over some arbitrary age threshold??? I could rant on and on and cite examples and look at it a million additional ways with anecdotes and all that shit, but at the end of the day, what it really boils down to for me is; what you suggests, is just not nice. On an individual level, old people in pain or terminal situations who voluntarily want to have their lives ended? That's a valid argument that falls under the whole assisted suicide question and a good debate can be made for or against that concept. But I don't equate that to what you advocate which is nothing less than a form of age focessed genocide.

I don't know if you can see how that works given your mindset on it, but its all part of that slippery slope thing. In any case, I had to respond because all insults aside, you raised one hell of a discussion and made your points in a tight concise manner. You engaged me and I didn't want to just leave it as it was yesterday. I don't agree with you on this, but oddly I understand where you are coming from. I got no problem with wanting a little self reliance out of people. I just don't think kicking the aged to the curb actually has to or should be a part of that..... It's a slippery slope bud, waaay slippery........JD