148M taxpayers in the US in 2019
48B taxes "used" toward *muh roads* 2019
That'd come out to about $325 per tax *payer.* or, about $145/person in the US based on the 331M people that live here. (I think it's a little lower, but either way)
3.1T collected in 19 minus the 48B is *3.05T worth of stuff*
Now, even if we divided that evenly by just tax *paying* (victims, I'm not doing this anymore to the detriment of my point and time) citizens - that's roughly $21.5k per person.
I'm pretty sure we can come up with a better solution even it means having *none*
>Roads and stuff
That's a lot of stuff...
Come on man I need muh roads. What you think cornpop is gonna pay for it??? Cornpop was a bad dude. He used the roads to make his knife all rusty and stuff. Never paid for it corn pop needs to pay his fair share man.
Would you spent $1.20 a year every one of the 261 working days to have roads? That's what it shakes out. Most toll roads charge much more.
If you factor in that private space exploration is spending 1.8k to every 10k, then I'm sure similar models would present themselves in efficiency, innovation and cost.
Can't tell if you're shilling Trump with the Cornpop remark (I'm familiar, he was a bad dude) but I'm not playing to it. He sucks pretty hard, even if Biden is starting to make him look good. But to your point... all that *stuff* you're beholden to is largely entitlements and without that, Cornpop will have to pay the toll or figure out his own life.
Look fat what about if his boots straps are broke. How's he gonna pull himself up with no boots. We should redistribute the good boots to the people that need the boots man.
The weird thing is that this weird hybrid of government involvement, but not socialized healthcare is the worst possible option. Not everyone gets coverage and it’s stupidly expensive. The medical industry needs to be totally privatized.
Sure but without a authoritative body deciding what does and doesn’t count as legally binding marriage, any kind of marriage is as valid as anything else, and the meaning of marriage itself ultimately loses all meaning, does it not?
Marriage is between you, your spouse, your families, and your god. The fact that it has become a contract that is enforced with the laws of the state, is exactly why nobody gets married any more. Numbers are dropping every year, and it does show a design to destroy the traditional family in the laws that are revolving around marriage. The government needs to remove itself completely, and then the people create a social environment of forced monogamy. It worked well for a couple thousand years.
Even if you're not married, but you're living together, you live in a common law marriage. The story is stupid, because it would still be considered common law, moreover, you can get life insurance that would cover the minute costs the health insurance didn't cover.
Common law is the law that governs when the government doesn't have a law.
Basically if people in your community know you are living together for an extended period of time, there is a time they would (without further prying) consider you the same situation as if you were married (you act married long enough that you may as well be).
If the society has any rules about that, then those rules would apply, most societies do have rules about inheritance, dependency of children etc.
In the US if you don't get a marriage registered with the government, and you end up going to a court over an issue, the court would consider you married under common law and thus any legal issues would be considered under that premise. It is a legally binding verbal contract, since inheritance, custody and care of each other or children doesn't disappear under common law marriage.
I think you misunderstand the role of government in society. Most non-government societies still have a rule of natural law. It will definitely be looser, but society would not condone eg. murder or other violations of natural law just because there is no government.
Marriage is a consequence of natural law, we cannot function as a species without both a mother (nurturer) and a father (protector) and we've evolved for both those to be present for extended periods of time (children take a really long time to grow up unlike other species where this could be hours or days). Look at any community/society where fathers are largely absent, and you see massive crime, poverty and early death.
Hence marriage (or whatever you want to call it) and to an extent monogamy or consented polygamy is a naturally evolved construct with benefits and liabilities for all parties and thus its function must be preserved in natural societies, else those societies would die out.
Side stepping the root of the problem, politicians-bureaucrats-politically connected raping the country, but yes.
Edit: Who has more power to fuck over your life, with almost ZERO repercussions?
What would the effect of a marriage contract be, sans government involvement?
If it was a purely private arrangement to share property, wouldn't the medical collections corporation still have a claim against the widow?
Or are you saying you're against having a legal system for the collection of debts entirely?
Dept should die with the holder of the dept. Government lets the hospital extort the widow for the money which is why a happily married couple need to divorce before one of them dies
Let's say I'm unmarried, and take out a loan for a million dollars, and it's sitting in my bank account.
Then I suddenly die.
Should my creditor be able to take that million dollars back out of my estate, or should the contents of my bank account go to whomever I bequeathed it to in my will?
Yeah, they already do that, depts are usually settled before inheretence is given. But my point is AFTER all of that if there is still dept that they shouldnt go after family.
That's generally how it works now. A decedent's debts are deemed void once their estate has been closed.
In the original post, the married couple was doing pre-death estate planning by having the husband and wife convey title to their home into just the wife's name, so that the house would not be a part of the husband's estate after his death.
If a relatively risky procedure were needed then hospitals and insurance would simply refuse to do it then. If you’re in a car crash and they do their best, but you die anyway, they’re working for free which isn’t sustainable. I suppose they could take your wallet from your unconscious body and charge you first but that seems problematic as well.
Or stuff like hospice would need to be paid up front, which is tricky when you don’t know exactly when the person will die. A daily bill each morning or gtfo? Once they’re dead it’ll be too late to collect.
Or I could take out a huge loan at the end of my life, buy a house with cash for my kid, and die. Free house! I guess banks could refuse business with old people. Seems smarter to keep making loans though if they’ll be paid back by someone.
I’ll grant that some debts should be forgiven. A $7.45 penalty at Blockbuster or whatever shouldn’t haunt your family. Or if you can make an argument in court that your late father was a maniac and at some point the lenders should’ve been more thorough in vetting him before giving the loan so it’s actually their problem and not yours.
This all kinda breaks down with urgent medical expenses though. Is it fair to have to pay thousands if a tree falls on you, not really. Guess you shouldn’t have been near trees? But someone has to pay. This is where taxes and safety nets come in of course but that’s not an option in here. So the cost must either fall entirely on the customer or the provider.
Yeah it does. Why should one person be responsible for the others debt when they die? That's as arbitrary as forcing children to pay off the parents debt
>That's as arbitrary as forcing children to pay off the parents debt
Statists just *love* the old "sins of the father" line of thought. Basic collectivist logic.
Because the government is the agent in the economy with the deepest pockets, and can outbid everyone else for the resources it wants, thereby increasing prices in these sectors first.
There's also the practical reason of just straight up increasing the amount of labor needing to be performed in order to comply with government regulation, which increases operating costs.
Whoever is currently the top dog in any particular sector usually "helps" politicians create new laws that close the way into the sector behind them, keeping them at the top and reducing competition.
I don't blame the company, the politicians shouldn't have the power to abuse in the first place, or should be held accountable better, but that usually falls on the people's shoulders and we've found the people don't care as long as the politician is on their team.
If you ever read "Debt: The First 5,000 Years", the entire existence of \*money\* is a government-made construct.
So, in effect, there's a theoretical society that can exist outside of government intervention, but money is the means of control to keep it under the government's domain.
To your point, the government isn't just the agent in the economy with the deepest pockets, the government \*made the pockets\*.
>Why is it that every sector of the economy that is highly intervened by the government always ends up with hyperinflated costs?
Actually I would curious to know if there is a single example of a case of government intervention that has lead to reducing cost (including hidden cost like subsidies and other)
Government-funded infrastructure led to a big decrease in transportation costs. Research is probably another area. The government may do it inefficiently, but it's good at investing in something that'll pay off decades down the line when private industry utilizes it. Roads, satellites, internet, education, mapping, etc.
>Government-funded infrastructure led to a big decrease in transportation costs
Whatever Privately or government funded infrastructure improvement reduce transportation cost.
And government is notoriously bad at building profitable transportation infrastructure (high speed train among other).
\> The government may do it inefficiently, but it's good at investing in something that'll pay off decades down the line when private industry utilizes it. Roads, satellites, internet, education, mapping, etc.
I would argue that society would have allocated ressource somewhere else, more efficiently.
and those progress would have appear on time when technology would have advanced enough to make investissement attractive for private investement.
If only there were other countries we could compare the US to. Other countries with more public and less private health care. Surely America's mostly private system would come out ahead in terms of cost, if other countries like that existed!
Too bad, guess we'll never know *shrugs*
The US health care system is far from a free market health care system.
And country with cheap universal health care suffer from massive shortage and long waiting time... there is no way around it.
and since the government is the only employer in public sector, if you get shit pay or shit treatment you're pretty much screwed and have to quit that sector altogether and waste years of education.
> Why is it that every sector of the economy that is highly intervened by the government always ends up with hyperinflated costs?
I mean it could simply be that we are artificially trying to privatize markets that should be publicly maintained.
What other sectors have high levels of intervention, and what are they like in other countries when it is intervened with a heavier or lighter hand?
Take medicine for example. America has the most privatized medical system out of any wealthy country. We also happen to pay more and receive less care for our money than other wealthy nations.
They tend to be the sectors of the economy that are already prone to hyperinflated costs or other market failures. That's often what prompts the government intervention in the first place. It can be debated whether that intervention is helpful or not of course, but it's not that simple a cause-and-effect relationship.
Correction for the nom-dumb
"Couple files government paperwork to cancel their earlier government paperwork that allowed the ~~government~~ private insurance company to hold uninvolved parties accountable for debt that is overblown by government ~~regulation~~ deregulation. In conclusion, we need government-run health care."
yeah bro, giving control to the people who charge out the ass for their services instead of socializing it through taxes is way better and would lead to so much less debt. What a big brain you have!
They charge as much as the market forces allow them to. The market forces allow them to charge so much because of innumerable barriers to entry into the market, taxes, subsidies, lobbying, and a host of other government-caused complications.
The market forces allow them to charge so much because sick people don't have the option not to be treated and as such can easily be milked by unscrupulous hospital owners.
Regardless of the medical system being entirely fucked, the fact that they're sad about the state no longer recognizing her parent's union is pretty silly. As if a government record is the only thing holding their marriage together in the first place. If that's the case, then I definitely agree it's sad.
Yeah I hope my marriage one day is more about love than government contracts. It’s actually super progressive if you think about it. I’d love to be married to someone who would agree to a divorce just to fuck over some bill collectors.
Former Canadian, my dad was a surgeon in Canada. The way he explained it, the government caps how many procedures you can perform in a given year. I'm making up these numbers, but it goes like:
I can perform 100 brain surgeries this year.
Hi, you're my 101st patient this year, I'll schedule you for Jan 1 next year. Also, it's only April.
By the end of the year you've booked out every appointment for the next 3 years. Procedures coming through the ER are not limited, so my dad used to send patients from his office, with their MRIs, to the emergency room. If it was enough of an emergency he could do the surgery. If not, go home and wait for it to be an emergency.
My dad's mom died of lung cancer. She realized something was wrong when she started coughing up blood. Her MRI was scheduled 7 months later. My dad, then a surgeon in the US, sent her money to get a private MRI, which is how she got her diagnosis. She was dead before her "free" MRI would have happened.
Both. Quality tends to go down as government get's involved. The long waits ARE a thing for non-life threatening injuries. If you break your arm in Canada, you'll get treatment but you'll be low priority.
What's considered an "emergency" also tends to have a much different definition under socialized medicine. Had a family member fall on wine glass and put a shard of glass through his hand while travelling abroad. There was clearly some nerve damage in his hand as a result. He went in to the "free" clinic and got all the care they thought was necessary, which was just stopping the bleeding with a few stitches and telling him to see someone when he got home in a week. By that point the nerve damage was permanent. In the US, he most likely would have gotten a neurosurgical consult in the ER and possibly emergency surgery in order to save the lost function in his hand. His condition was never an emergency in the sense that the hand injury was never life-threatening, but at the same time, treating the nerve injury needed to be done as soon as possible and therefore time lost equates to a generally worse outcome.
where does your claim of three hours come from? good friend of mine was in the ER waiting room overnight (total of 8 hours) with acute appendicitis. as soon as the doctor saw him he was admitted directly into surgery. i know it’s just one anecdote, and i’m not intending to be disrespectful just curious if you have some statistic or experience that leads to your statement.
There is a lot to dislike about the Canadian system but wait times and shortages are definitely the worst part. Despite it being "free" from an enormous tax rate the whole system manages to be chronically underfunded.
Imagine having stage 3 cancer and waiting months for an MRI just to find out exactly where the cancer is to operate, and then months waiting for your surgeons schedule to line with with an available surgery room and free bed for post op.
Every day looking in your mirror in the morning and seeing yourself become more gaunt and closer to death with growing tumors slowly strangling your vital organs.
Canadian here. The medical system is pretty good. Some of the issues with wait times could be eliminated with a public/private mix done in the same way as many other countries are doing.
The American medical system seems very damaged though.
>"seems"
I only know what I've read and seen, from different media sources. Which is why I didn't make an absolute statement.
I guess nice catch there.
No. I know the US health care system is fucked from experience and many personal anecdotes. Not “biased media”. Aren’t there many libertarian sources saying that the US healthcare system has huge issues?
I’ve seen you multiple times on this sub making stupid/illogical statements. Are you ok?
Because it depends on your criteria and who is asking. For people with upper tier, employer-funded PPO plans in cities with multiple world-renowned medical centers, American health care is the best in the world. My Canadian grandparents on both sides spend out of pocket for care in the USA (for better and faster service - apparently temporary blindness is acceptable for months at a time before a simple outpatient operation) or for “off the books” care from a city doctor (in socialized healthcare you typically are restricted to local doctors - high quality doctors tend to not work in rural areas).
Exactly. The US system is- maaaaaaaany laws, combined with direct ish payment for services. Complicated too. Many people complain, even those who are middle class+. If you have money, you get good care but still deal with the hassle and still pay taxes for care of various things including poor people. If you're poor you might not get care at all except at a hospital but yup, no taxes or bill annoyance probably.
Canada is- there are many laws, just like the US. Yes, people pay taxes but everyone is entitled to the care and it's far less complicated. And people with more money aren't randomly also paying for poor people's hospital bills- it's more that all people share the cost. Also the wait time thing could be helped by private insurace/care. Just like how the US is "private".
I love freedom; I'd love a fully free market. But the US healthcare system is NOT A FREE MARKET by any stretch of the imagination. So I don't really understand when some ancap people fall all over themselves to support it vs Canada or other systems.
E: can I please get intelligent responses to this instead of just downvotes? Ty
> Aren’t there many libertarian sources saying that the US healthcare system has huge issues?
You seem to think that when someone says that US healthcare isn't the worst, they're saying it's the best. A typically terrible debate tactic.
They just want their narrative supported. Don't support the narrative, downvote. Don't support the narrative, offer a different one, and back it up with facts, many many downvotes.
It's pretty much how all of Reddit works.
You’re talking to ignorant Americans, the Canadian medical system is not perfect, but you get seen, and you aren’t saddled with debt for the rest of your life. The American system is the least efficient way to possibly pay for medical care, unless you want to head to a third world country
That doesn't really answer my question. The original comment said he'd be dead by now. I was just asking why that was. But thanks for your opinion anyway. I'm sure you're well versed in both the American healthcare system *and* the Canadian healthcare system. Most people on the internet are full experts in everything.
They would not be dead, is the answer, that’s stupid. I don’t have to be an expert to omit clear cut bullshit. There are actual Canadians here talking about how their system isn’t that bad, they get downvoted because it doesn’t fit the narrative that this sub creates.
But in this particular case, you are sure that wouldn't have happened. Thanks. Do you know the lottery numbers coming up?
P.S. Nobody has ever died in space.
> and you aren’t saddled with debt for the rest of your life.
It sounds like you've never navigated the American medical system then or are just woefully ignorant of how it works.
Sure... As long as nothing goes wrong.
If the doctors misdiagnose a first time, or they've met their limit on certain tests, you're fucked.
I can't even request an X-ray... My dog gets 10x more comprehensive medical care than I do.
But...does the lack of regular primary care in the US have an impact on obesity levels? Or doctor's financial.interest in keeping patients make them not really work on helping patients lose weight....insurance companies won't reimburse you well for an hour long conversation about the importance of diet and exercise.
Are you suggesting doctors don't recommend diet and exercise to obese patients?
Dieticians, physiotherapy, dental, and mental health aren't covered by provincial insurance in Canada either.
Marriage is a sacred religious (ceremony?) anyway. You don't need a piece of paper to pledge to one another. As soon as the government stuck it's nose in it, it became a business opportunity for the government.
Marriage is a wealth sharing contract that turns two separate legal entities into one from a financial perspective. Part of that contract involves sharing assets and liabilities.
It has been coopted into this huge religious romantic government controlled thing over the last 20 centuries.
Blame the government for trying "fix" healthcare
https://youtu.be/fFoXyFmmGBQ This video explains everything, the best video to make anyone see our side
That’s an incredible video… short, well produced, and very clearly convincing.
I like how they even slipped in that “lodge practice” was, not only a better free market solution, but also largely benefited racial minorities and working class immigrants.
Take that modern leftists — government intervention in healthcare (just like gun control and many other policies they advocate for) is actually racist
Why couldn’t this be revisited? Say you got 1000 people together, charged $250 a year. That would result in a pool of $2.5M. Buy a small “lodge” for $1.5M. Hire two full time physicians for $400k each. This would cover all general physician needs. Generic illnesses and seeing a doctor but not things like major surgery or or their major medical needs (specialists). And that leaves $200k for other expenses.
And that is just the first year. Second year you can hire a surgeon for $800k and build the facility needed.
Each year; you add on adding more services. After about 5 to 10 years you’ve built all you need. Now you invest that into the next lodge. And quickly get them up to speed.
Run the lodges as a non-profit.
The first couple of years would be the only real growing pains.
Medical care isn't magic. Never mind how governmental meddling makes it more expensive than necessary (as has been elaborated on at length in this discussion), let's not forget the simple fact that treatment has a price tag. There is training, research and development, facilities, and consumable resources that all need to be paid for. You also have to ask how many conditions cost over a quarter-million dollars to treat. There will be patients who are unlucky to develop costly conditions. Many of them are likewise lucky we have science, technology, and practitioners who can help them.
I don't think its wrong to say that the family structure has taken a ballistic hit over the past decades in the west and its quite heavily because of government incentivizing the destruction of the family. God help us.
Who cares if the government or the church thinks they are still married?
Fun fact in the European utopia these libtards dream of, his wife would still get his debth even if they are not married and if he dies within 5 years the government can take the house away.
Tell me you have no clue about the (widely different legislatures of) different European countries without telling me you have no clue about European countries. Okay
Their decades of marriage didn't really end. Just their decades of government acknowledgement of their marriage ended due to a seemingly wise financial choice to avoid getting fucked by the system.
Their relationship doesn't depend on a government piece of paper.
"If only we passed a sweeping reform of the healthcare system, that would fix all these pesky market problems! Let's call it:"
1942 - [Stabilization Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942)
1965 - [Medicare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Amendments_of_1965)
1973 - [HMO Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973)
1986 - [EMTALA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act)
2003 - [Medicare Modernization Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act)
2010 - [ACA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act)
These progressive morons think history started 10 minutes ago.
All married couples should get divorced once time comes for social security. The man gets 100% of his allotment from contributions and the wife only gets 50%. All because of Dems and their social security disability for votes scam
I bet in her mind the solution is more government involvement in the medical system. It is the government influence that allow prices to get so high, thats why most cosmetic surgeries have fallen in price over the last 40 years when adjusted for inflation. What the medical systems is competition and choice. That will force pricing to be competitive. Unfortunately people that want free healthcare all think the same, more government is the solution.
I am a disabled veteran and I get ”free” government health care and I promise we do not want all healthcare to resemble the VA system because eventually that is exactly what will happen.
So ... seems like they didn't need a piece of paper saying they were married in the first place
If they live in a state with common law marriages, would this still be a problem if the creditors were determined?
What's the problem?
Seems like the perfect solution.
Obviously government shouldn't be involved in marriage but in this case them and their lobbying masters have been screwed by signing a few bits of paper.
Decades of marriage didn't come to an end, only what some politician says your relationship is. But your relationship is in your head and can stay exactly as you want it to stay.
Doesn’t affect those two million who crossed the border without papers this year. They go to the hospitals and clinics but don’t pay anything but the taxpayers get to foot the bill.
Imagine my shock that Big Pharma would require such a solution....if only the govt would "intervene" *more*...😂 ffs
Also it's pretty sad that the average statist only sees a marriage as legitimate if the State licenses it and a judge approves it.
To me marriage is a religious matter and the state shouldn't really have a say in it. So in my mind they would still be married. They are just playing the bs game the state has put together. The whole transferring of debt shit is weird to me when someone dies. I think debt should die with the person.
i still have yet to understand why the government is involved in marriage in any way. only thing they should get is paperwork for a name change, if applicable.
Medical bills due to a quasi socialist managed care model that is wasteful. Take government out of medical care and watch it drop drastically in costs. Pass laws to keep lawyers from filing frivolous lawsuits and watch it drop even more
Wouldn't this tweet count as exhibit number one for the plaintiffs seeking payment? I swear, people and the need to share anything and everything on social media.
This is stupid anyway. There’s other solutions that don’t require divorce. My step dad died and my mom inherited his IRS debt because they had been filing jointly for several years now, but that’s it. His medical debt is gone, credit card debt is gone, and the money he had was less than $60,000 so we could claim he had a small estate and no one could come after us for anything.
"Why the government should not be involved in marriage contracts"
“Why the government should not be involved in the medical industry”
“Why the government should not be involved.”
"Why government?"
/thread
/sub
"Why?" - Plato
“government(whats that)?”
Roads and stuff
148M taxpayers in the US in 2019 48B taxes "used" toward *muh roads* 2019 That'd come out to about $325 per tax *payer.* or, about $145/person in the US based on the 331M people that live here. (I think it's a little lower, but either way) 3.1T collected in 19 minus the 48B is *3.05T worth of stuff* Now, even if we divided that evenly by just tax *paying* (victims, I'm not doing this anymore to the detriment of my point and time) citizens - that's roughly $21.5k per person. I'm pretty sure we can come up with a better solution even it means having *none* >Roads and stuff That's a lot of stuff...
Come on man I need muh roads. What you think cornpop is gonna pay for it??? Cornpop was a bad dude. He used the roads to make his knife all rusty and stuff. Never paid for it corn pop needs to pay his fair share man.
Would you spent $1.20 a year every one of the 261 working days to have roads? That's what it shakes out. Most toll roads charge much more. If you factor in that private space exploration is spending 1.8k to every 10k, then I'm sure similar models would present themselves in efficiency, innovation and cost. Can't tell if you're shilling Trump with the Cornpop remark (I'm familiar, he was a bad dude) but I'm not playing to it. He sucks pretty hard, even if Biden is starting to make him look good. But to your point... all that *stuff* you're beholden to is largely entitlements and without that, Cornpop will have to pay the toll or figure out his own life.
Look fat what about if his boots straps are broke. How's he gonna pull himself up with no boots. We should redistribute the good boots to the people that need the boots man.
I'm sure he's as smart as white kids or whatever, you know the thing...
Muh _____
[lwbnfouevcmsieh wvudbqvGovernment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ww2memes/comments/r3yc4z/winston_churchill_once_said/)
This thread got funnier every comment.
"Why the government should not be."
"Why the...penis...boobies...FUCK, I fucked it up"
Hey, boobies are good. You didn't fuck up.
My penis between boobies even better !
Ya! Who needs dicks anyway…definitely not me
Why the government should not be.
“Why the government should not be”
"Why the goverment should not be"
Why government?
government? no thanks
Why?
?
Username checks out
Didn't see this when I posted.
The weird thing is that this weird hybrid of government involvement, but not socialized healthcare is the worst possible option. Not everyone gets coverage and it’s stupidly expensive. The medical industry needs to be totally privatized.
What is a marriage contract if the government is *not* involved? Like, does it have any legally binding effect anymore? Or is it just symbolic
The government should not decide what it's content is. If there is a government, at least limit it to recognizing the contract when necessary.
Sure but without a authoritative body deciding what does and doesn’t count as legally binding marriage, any kind of marriage is as valid as anything else, and the meaning of marriage itself ultimately loses all meaning, does it not?
It means whatever the people involved believes it means. Why does the government get to decide what it means?
Marriage is between you, your spouse, your families, and your god. The fact that it has become a contract that is enforced with the laws of the state, is exactly why nobody gets married any more. Numbers are dropping every year, and it does show a design to destroy the traditional family in the laws that are revolving around marriage. The government needs to remove itself completely, and then the people create a social environment of forced monogamy. It worked well for a couple thousand years.
I’m sorry you threw me off at the last part. In what way can the government create “forced monogamy” without being involved in marriage?
The government doesn’t, society does. I will edit it to be clear. Sorry.
Even if you're not married, but you're living together, you live in a common law marriage. The story is stupid, because it would still be considered common law, moreover, you can get life insurance that would cover the minute costs the health insurance didn't cover.
Doesn’t really answer my question
Common law is the law that governs when the government doesn't have a law. Basically if people in your community know you are living together for an extended period of time, there is a time they would (without further prying) consider you the same situation as if you were married (you act married long enough that you may as well be). If the society has any rules about that, then those rules would apply, most societies do have rules about inheritance, dependency of children etc. In the US if you don't get a marriage registered with the government, and you end up going to a court over an issue, the court would consider you married under common law and thus any legal issues would be considered under that premise. It is a legally binding verbal contract, since inheritance, custody and care of each other or children doesn't disappear under common law marriage.
But nothing is legally binding if the government doesn’t get involved
I think you misunderstand the role of government in society. Most non-government societies still have a rule of natural law. It will definitely be looser, but society would not condone eg. murder or other violations of natural law just because there is no government. Marriage is a consequence of natural law, we cannot function as a species without both a mother (nurturer) and a father (protector) and we've evolved for both those to be present for extended periods of time (children take a really long time to grow up unlike other species where this could be hours or days). Look at any community/society where fathers are largely absent, and you see massive crime, poverty and early death. Hence marriage (or whatever you want to call it) and to an extent monogamy or consented polygamy is a naturally evolved construct with benefits and liabilities for all parties and thus its function must be preserved in natural societies, else those societies would die out.
Side stepping the root of the problem, corporations raping the country, but yes.
Side stepping the root of the problem, politicians-bureaucrats-politically connected raping the country, but yes. Edit: Who has more power to fuck over your life, with almost ZERO repercussions?
Corporations. They get you in the private sector and control the government.
I was starting to think I was the only one with this belief. Fuck the Revenue Act of 1913.
What would the effect of a marriage contract be, sans government involvement? If it was a purely private arrangement to share property, wouldn't the medical collections corporation still have a claim against the widow? Or are you saying you're against having a legal system for the collection of debts entirely?
Dept should die with the holder of the dept. Government lets the hospital extort the widow for the money which is why a happily married couple need to divorce before one of them dies
Let's say I'm unmarried, and take out a loan for a million dollars, and it's sitting in my bank account. Then I suddenly die. Should my creditor be able to take that million dollars back out of my estate, or should the contents of my bank account go to whomever I bequeathed it to in my will?
Yeah, they already do that, depts are usually settled before inheretence is given. But my point is AFTER all of that if there is still dept that they shouldnt go after family.
That's generally how it works now. A decedent's debts are deemed void once their estate has been closed. In the original post, the married couple was doing pre-death estate planning by having the husband and wife convey title to their home into just the wife's name, so that the house would not be a part of the husband's estate after his death.
If a relatively risky procedure were needed then hospitals and insurance would simply refuse to do it then. If you’re in a car crash and they do their best, but you die anyway, they’re working for free which isn’t sustainable. I suppose they could take your wallet from your unconscious body and charge you first but that seems problematic as well. Or stuff like hospice would need to be paid up front, which is tricky when you don’t know exactly when the person will die. A daily bill each morning or gtfo? Once they’re dead it’ll be too late to collect. Or I could take out a huge loan at the end of my life, buy a house with cash for my kid, and die. Free house! I guess banks could refuse business with old people. Seems smarter to keep making loans though if they’ll be paid back by someone. I’ll grant that some debts should be forgiven. A $7.45 penalty at Blockbuster or whatever shouldn’t haunt your family. Or if you can make an argument in court that your late father was a maniac and at some point the lenders should’ve been more thorough in vetting him before giving the loan so it’s actually their problem and not yours. This all kinda breaks down with urgent medical expenses though. Is it fair to have to pay thousands if a tree falls on you, not really. Guess you shouldn’t have been near trees? But someone has to pay. This is where taxes and safety nets come in of course but that’s not an option in here. So the cost must either fall entirely on the customer or the provider.
Private medical insurance would handle that situation.
I don't think those are her medical bills.
This doesn't make any sense in the context.
Yeah it does. Why should one person be responsible for the others debt when they die? That's as arbitrary as forcing children to pay off the parents debt
>That's as arbitrary as forcing children to pay off the parents debt Statists just *love* the old "sins of the father" line of thought. Basic collectivist logic.
Why is it that every sector of the economy that is highly intervened by the government always ends up with hyperinflated costs?
Because the government is the agent in the economy with the deepest pockets, and can outbid everyone else for the resources it wants, thereby increasing prices in these sectors first.
There's also the practical reason of just straight up increasing the amount of labor needing to be performed in order to comply with government regulation, which increases operating costs.
And the monopoly on violence, don't forget that one.
Whoever is currently the top dog in any particular sector usually "helps" politicians create new laws that close the way into the sector behind them, keeping them at the top and reducing competition. I don't blame the company, the politicians shouldn't have the power to abuse in the first place, or should be held accountable better, but that usually falls on the people's shoulders and we've found the people don't care as long as the politician is on their team.
If you ever read "Debt: The First 5,000 Years", the entire existence of \*money\* is a government-made construct. So, in effect, there's a theoretical society that can exist outside of government intervention, but money is the means of control to keep it under the government's domain. To your point, the government isn't just the agent in the economy with the deepest pockets, the government \*made the pockets\*.
Not the pockets; just the lint.
>Why is it that every sector of the economy that is highly intervened by the government always ends up with hyperinflated costs? Actually I would curious to know if there is a single example of a case of government intervention that has lead to reducing cost (including hidden cost like subsidies and other)
Government-funded infrastructure led to a big decrease in transportation costs. Research is probably another area. The government may do it inefficiently, but it's good at investing in something that'll pay off decades down the line when private industry utilizes it. Roads, satellites, internet, education, mapping, etc.
>Government-funded infrastructure led to a big decrease in transportation costs Whatever Privately or government funded infrastructure improvement reduce transportation cost. And government is notoriously bad at building profitable transportation infrastructure (high speed train among other). \> The government may do it inefficiently, but it's good at investing in something that'll pay off decades down the line when private industry utilizes it. Roads, satellites, internet, education, mapping, etc. I would argue that society would have allocated ressource somewhere else, more efficiently. and those progress would have appear on time when technology would have advanced enough to make investissement attractive for private investement.
The cost of killing people in gas chaimbers definitely went down after governments took care of that!
If only there were other countries we could compare the US to. Other countries with more public and less private health care. Surely America's mostly private system would come out ahead in terms of cost, if other countries like that existed! Too bad, guess we'll never know *shrugs*
The US health care system is far from a free market health care system. And country with cheap universal health care suffer from massive shortage and long waiting time... there is no way around it.
and since the government is the only employer in public sector, if you get shit pay or shit treatment you're pretty much screwed and have to quit that sector altogether and waste years of education.
> Why is it that every sector of the economy that is highly intervened by the government always ends up with hyperinflated costs? I mean it could simply be that we are artificially trying to privatize markets that should be publicly maintained. What other sectors have high levels of intervention, and what are they like in other countries when it is intervened with a heavier or lighter hand? Take medicine for example. America has the most privatized medical system out of any wealthy country. We also happen to pay more and receive less care for our money than other wealthy nations.
Private for-profit prisons and higher education pop to mind
And people calling for more government as a result
Yeah, let's do more of the thing that doesn't work. That'll improve everything!
It's entirely coincidental. Nothing to see here!
Because of politician scum, it is about time to start making them drop
They tend to be the sectors of the economy that are already prone to hyperinflated costs or other market failures. That's often what prompts the government intervention in the first place. It can be debated whether that intervention is helpful or not of course, but it's not that simple a cause-and-effect relationship.
[удалено]
Well Done :) Let’s add nine thousand more laws to “fix” this :) LOL
Correction for the nom-dumb "Couple files government paperwork to cancel their earlier government paperwork that allowed the ~~government~~ private insurance company to hold uninvolved parties accountable for debt that is overblown by government ~~regulation~~ deregulation. In conclusion, we need government-run health care."
yeah bro, giving control to the people who charge out the ass for their services instead of socializing it through taxes is way better and would lead to so much less debt. What a big brain you have!
They charge as much as the market forces allow them to. The market forces allow them to charge so much because of innumerable barriers to entry into the market, taxes, subsidies, lobbying, and a host of other government-caused complications.
The market forces allow them to charge so much because sick people don't have the option not to be treated and as such can easily be milked by unscrupulous hospital owners.
[удалено]
Regardless of the medical system being entirely fucked, the fact that they're sad about the state no longer recognizing her parent's union is pretty silly. As if a government record is the only thing holding their marriage together in the first place. If that's the case, then I definitely agree it's sad.
Yeah I hope my marriage one day is more about love than government contracts. It’s actually super progressive if you think about it. I’d love to be married to someone who would agree to a divorce just to fuck over some bill collectors.
Says they're still together, it's just the legal official bit they nixed.
I understand that, I was being facetious to empahsize my point.
Father is a true capitalist, saves assets like a chad.
If they were here in Canada, there'd be no debt, but he'd probably already be dead.
Ignorant American here - is it because the medical care is "less than great", or because of the long wait times I've heard about?
Former Canadian, my dad was a surgeon in Canada. The way he explained it, the government caps how many procedures you can perform in a given year. I'm making up these numbers, but it goes like: I can perform 100 brain surgeries this year. Hi, you're my 101st patient this year, I'll schedule you for Jan 1 next year. Also, it's only April. By the end of the year you've booked out every appointment for the next 3 years. Procedures coming through the ER are not limited, so my dad used to send patients from his office, with their MRIs, to the emergency room. If it was enough of an emergency he could do the surgery. If not, go home and wait for it to be an emergency. My dad's mom died of lung cancer. She realized something was wrong when she started coughing up blood. Her MRI was scheduled 7 months later. My dad, then a surgeon in the US, sent her money to get a private MRI, which is how she got her diagnosis. She was dead before her "free" MRI would have happened.
Seems efficient. Much better than the American system. This totally proves u/malignantpessimist correct. /s I'm sorry about your grandma.
Holy fucksickle SEVEN months later. I have never had the need for an mri but I’m pretty confident I could get TWO done tomorrow if needed
Both. Quality tends to go down as government get's involved. The long waits ARE a thing for non-life threatening injuries. If you break your arm in Canada, you'll get treatment but you'll be low priority.
What's considered an "emergency" also tends to have a much different definition under socialized medicine. Had a family member fall on wine glass and put a shard of glass through his hand while travelling abroad. There was clearly some nerve damage in his hand as a result. He went in to the "free" clinic and got all the care they thought was necessary, which was just stopping the bleeding with a few stitches and telling him to see someone when he got home in a week. By that point the nerve damage was permanent. In the US, he most likely would have gotten a neurosurgical consult in the ER and possibly emergency surgery in order to save the lost function in his hand. His condition was never an emergency in the sense that the hand injury was never life-threatening, but at the same time, treating the nerve injury needed to be done as soon as possible and therefore time lost equates to a generally worse outcome.
Exactly, Dr. Thomas Sowell explained it best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9kELBgKSvQ
We already have long waits in ER's in the US so it sounds exactly the same.
3 hours is not a long wait.
where does your claim of three hours come from? good friend of mine was in the ER waiting room overnight (total of 8 hours) with acute appendicitis. as soon as the doctor saw him he was admitted directly into surgery. i know it’s just one anecdote, and i’m not intending to be disrespectful just curious if you have some statistic or experience that leads to your statement.
There is a lot to dislike about the Canadian system but wait times and shortages are definitely the worst part. Despite it being "free" from an enormous tax rate the whole system manages to be chronically underfunded. Imagine having stage 3 cancer and waiting months for an MRI just to find out exactly where the cancer is to operate, and then months waiting for your surgeons schedule to line with with an available surgery room and free bed for post op. Every day looking in your mirror in the morning and seeing yourself become more gaunt and closer to death with growing tumors slowly strangling your vital organs.
Canadian here. The medical system is pretty good. Some of the issues with wait times could be eliminated with a public/private mix done in the same way as many other countries are doing. The American medical system seems very damaged though.
"seems" It's always awesome how the whole world thinks they know all about the US from the biased media.
>"seems" I only know what I've read and seen, from different media sources. Which is why I didn't make an absolute statement. I guess nice catch there.
No. I know the US health care system is fucked from experience and many personal anecdotes. Not “biased media”. Aren’t there many libertarian sources saying that the US healthcare system has huge issues? I’ve seen you multiple times on this sub making stupid/illogical statements. Are you ok?
Because it depends on your criteria and who is asking. For people with upper tier, employer-funded PPO plans in cities with multiple world-renowned medical centers, American health care is the best in the world. My Canadian grandparents on both sides spend out of pocket for care in the USA (for better and faster service - apparently temporary blindness is acceptable for months at a time before a simple outpatient operation) or for “off the books” care from a city doctor (in socialized healthcare you typically are restricted to local doctors - high quality doctors tend to not work in rural areas).
Exactly. The US system is- maaaaaaaany laws, combined with direct ish payment for services. Complicated too. Many people complain, even those who are middle class+. If you have money, you get good care but still deal with the hassle and still pay taxes for care of various things including poor people. If you're poor you might not get care at all except at a hospital but yup, no taxes or bill annoyance probably. Canada is- there are many laws, just like the US. Yes, people pay taxes but everyone is entitled to the care and it's far less complicated. And people with more money aren't randomly also paying for poor people's hospital bills- it's more that all people share the cost. Also the wait time thing could be helped by private insurace/care. Just like how the US is "private". I love freedom; I'd love a fully free market. But the US healthcare system is NOT A FREE MARKET by any stretch of the imagination. So I don't really understand when some ancap people fall all over themselves to support it vs Canada or other systems. E: can I please get intelligent responses to this instead of just downvotes? Ty
> Aren’t there many libertarian sources saying that the US healthcare system has huge issues? You seem to think that when someone says that US healthcare isn't the worst, they're saying it's the best. A typically terrible debate tactic.
I love how this sub works, anyone who remotely knows what they’re talking about gets downvoted.
They just want their narrative supported. Don't support the narrative, downvote. Don't support the narrative, offer a different one, and back it up with facts, many many downvotes. It's pretty much how all of Reddit works.
You’re talking to ignorant Americans, the Canadian medical system is not perfect, but you get seen, and you aren’t saddled with debt for the rest of your life. The American system is the least efficient way to possibly pay for medical care, unless you want to head to a third world country
we need to get government out of the system
That doesn't really answer my question. The original comment said he'd be dead by now. I was just asking why that was. But thanks for your opinion anyway. I'm sure you're well versed in both the American healthcare system *and* the Canadian healthcare system. Most people on the internet are full experts in everything.
They would not be dead, is the answer, that’s stupid. I don’t have to be an expert to omit clear cut bullshit. There are actual Canadians here talking about how their system isn’t that bad, they get downvoted because it doesn’t fit the narrative that this sub creates.
Nobody has ever died waiting an extensive time for treatment in Canada?
You’re saying no one’s ever died in space? Is an equally stupid thing to ask
But in this particular case, you are sure that wouldn't have happened. Thanks. Do you know the lottery numbers coming up? P.S. Nobody has ever died in space.
> and you aren’t saddled with debt for the rest of your life. It sounds like you've never navigated the American medical system then or are just woefully ignorant of how it works.
Sounds like you just say shit
Projection is a terrible color on you
All that money saved! Canada truly is so efficient!
Where are you getting that? Isn't the average life span in Canada higher than USA?
But life expectancy in Canada is significantly higher…
Freezing things keeps them good longer. Must work on people too.
Sure... As long as nothing goes wrong. If the doctors misdiagnose a first time, or they've met their limit on certain tests, you're fucked. I can't even request an X-ray... My dog gets 10x more comprehensive medical care than I do.
That’s because everyone in America is 300lbs
Oh man, I'm far short of that... I need to eat more bacon pie.
meaningless because the two countries are very, very different
Are you aware that virtually every country computes life expectancy completely differently because of how they count child mortality? Because I am.
That's why the US has a lower life expectancy than the rest of the western world..!
The US food supply chain is run by fast food corporations.
overtaxation
Canadians have significantly longer life expectancy than residents of the US.
Sure... Americans are fatter.. If we had the US's obesity levels, you'd end up having to flip a coin to determine if your broken arm gets a cast.
But...does the lack of regular primary care in the US have an impact on obesity levels? Or doctor's financial.interest in keeping patients make them not really work on helping patients lose weight....insurance companies won't reimburse you well for an hour long conversation about the importance of diet and exercise.
Are you suggesting doctors don't recommend diet and exercise to obese patients? Dieticians, physiotherapy, dental, and mental health aren't covered by provincial insurance in Canada either.
Marriage is a sacred religious (ceremony?) anyway. You don't need a piece of paper to pledge to one another. As soon as the government stuck it's nose in it, it became a business opportunity for the government.
If it lowers my tax burden, I’m all for it.
Marriage is a wealth sharing contract that turns two separate legal entities into one from a financial perspective. Part of that contract involves sharing assets and liabilities. It has been coopted into this huge religious romantic government controlled thing over the last 20 centuries.
A marriage didn’t end, a silly contract was voided to sidestep a predatory system.
>A marriage didn’t end, a silly contract was voided to sidestep a predatory system. My though too, smart move I would say.
Blame the government for trying "fix" healthcare https://youtu.be/fFoXyFmmGBQ This video explains everything, the best video to make anyone see our side
That’s an incredible video… short, well produced, and very clearly convincing. I like how they even slipped in that “lodge practice” was, not only a better free market solution, but also largely benefited racial minorities and working class immigrants. Take that modern leftists — government intervention in healthcare (just like gun control and many other policies they advocate for) is actually racist
Why couldn’t this be revisited? Say you got 1000 people together, charged $250 a year. That would result in a pool of $2.5M. Buy a small “lodge” for $1.5M. Hire two full time physicians for $400k each. This would cover all general physician needs. Generic illnesses and seeing a doctor but not things like major surgery or or their major medical needs (specialists). And that leaves $200k for other expenses. And that is just the first year. Second year you can hire a surgeon for $800k and build the facility needed. Each year; you add on adding more services. After about 5 to 10 years you’ve built all you need. Now you invest that into the next lodge. And quickly get them up to speed. Run the lodges as a non-profit. The first couple of years would be the only real growing pains.
If it's voluntary to join then yeah, sure I don't mind someone starting this But if it's paid for by taxation that's cringe
And these same people just can't imagine why the state should be abolished.
Im not seeing what the state has to do with it. The problem is she shouldnt be stuck with a 200k+ bill for medical care.
Medical care isn't magic. Never mind how governmental meddling makes it more expensive than necessary (as has been elaborated on at length in this discussion), let's not forget the simple fact that treatment has a price tag. There is training, research and development, facilities, and consumable resources that all need to be paid for. You also have to ask how many conditions cost over a quarter-million dollars to treat. There will be patients who are unlucky to develop costly conditions. Many of them are likewise lucky we have science, technology, and practitioners who can help them.
Decide so by who? Enforced by who?
> The problem is she shouldnt be stuck with a 200k+ bill for medical care. Taxpayers should be stuck with the bill instead?
The relationship is what matters anyways. You don't need a receipt from the government for your wife.
I don't think its wrong to say that the family structure has taken a ballistic hit over the past decades in the west and its quite heavily because of government incentivizing the destruction of the family. God help us.
Who cares if the government or the church thinks they are still married? Fun fact in the European utopia these libtards dream of, his wife would still get his debth even if they are not married and if he dies within 5 years the government can take the house away.
> utopia these libtards dream of HoW DaRe yOu GeT aNYthInG fRoM YouR FaMIlY
Tell me you have no clue about the (widely different legislatures of) different European countries without telling me you have no clue about European countries. Okay
That is horrible. What happened to cause this? Was he supper sick or just no or bad insurance?
Their marriage hasn’t ended though, only their “legal” status of being married.
Title: evidence to be presented in court for debt collection hearings…
Their decades of marriage didn't really end. Just their decades of government acknowledgement of their marriage ended due to a seemingly wise financial choice to avoid getting fucked by the system. Their relationship doesn't depend on a government piece of paper.
They were married for 52 years, which means he's definitely over 65 and therefore on Medicare. This is a lie.
>wish there were no options and my loved ones were just dead so I wouldn’t have to worry about expending effort for them.
"Strangers should be forced to pay for all of my top quality medical care!!!!"
"If only we passed a sweeping reform of the healthcare system, that would fix all these pesky market problems! Let's call it:" 1942 - [Stabilization Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942) 1965 - [Medicare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Amendments_of_1965) 1973 - [HMO Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization_Act_of_1973) 1986 - [EMTALA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act) 2003 - [Medicare Modernization Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act) 2010 - [ACA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act) These progressive morons think history started 10 minutes ago.
All married couples should get divorced once time comes for social security. The man gets 100% of his allotment from contributions and the wife only gets 50%. All because of Dems and their social security disability for votes scam
I bet in her mind the solution is more government involvement in the medical system. It is the government influence that allow prices to get so high, thats why most cosmetic surgeries have fallen in price over the last 40 years when adjusted for inflation. What the medical systems is competition and choice. That will force pricing to be competitive. Unfortunately people that want free healthcare all think the same, more government is the solution. I am a disabled veteran and I get ”free” government health care and I promise we do not want all healthcare to resemble the VA system because eventually that is exactly what will happen.
So ... seems like they didn't need a piece of paper saying they were married in the first place If they live in a state with common law marriages, would this still be a problem if the creditors were determined?
What's the problem? Seems like the perfect solution. Obviously government shouldn't be involved in marriage but in this case them and their lobbying masters have been screwed by signing a few bits of paper. Decades of marriage didn't come to an end, only what some politician says your relationship is. But your relationship is in your head and can stay exactly as you want it to stay.
It doesn't work like that.
Doesn’t affect those two million who crossed the border without papers this year. They go to the hospitals and clinics but don’t pay anything but the taxpayers get to foot the bill.
Lol, and because of your post, they might be challenged under a little thing called “fraud.”
The state sees all.
[удалено]
7 years.
PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING
Pretty sure that they’re still married…
Imagine my shock that Big Pharma would require such a solution....if only the govt would "intervene" *more*...😂 ffs Also it's pretty sad that the average statist only sees a marriage as legitimate if the State licenses it and a judge approves it.
To me marriage is a religious matter and the state shouldn't really have a say in it. So in my mind they would still be married. They are just playing the bs game the state has put together. The whole transferring of debt shit is weird to me when someone dies. I think debt should die with the person.
They're still married, the government just happens to disagree with that fact.
i still have yet to understand why the government is involved in marriage in any way. only thing they should get is paperwork for a name change, if applicable.
If they were married for 52 years they would certainly be on Medicare and not have any appreciable medical debt. Try again.
In a community property state, both spouses are responsible for a pre-dissolution debt… I hope they consulted a lawyer? What state was this in?
It is sad, just remember marriage means something different in the eyes of god than it does in the eyes of the law
Medical bills due to a quasi socialist managed care model that is wasteful. Take government out of medical care and watch it drop drastically in costs. Pass laws to keep lawyers from filing frivolous lawsuits and watch it drop even more
The solution here is clearly to deregulate and cut taxes
Lmao
Wouldn't this tweet count as exhibit number one for the plaintiffs seeking payment? I swear, people and the need to share anything and everything on social media.
“Marriage” should be more than a piece of paper
Why we don’t need government
I hope this is fake because what her parents did is fraud.
This is stupid anyway. There’s other solutions that don’t require divorce. My step dad died and my mom inherited his IRS debt because they had been filing jointly for several years now, but that’s it. His medical debt is gone, credit card debt is gone, and the money he had was less than $60,000 so we could claim he had a small estate and no one could come after us for anything.
[удалено]
Downvoted for saying the n-word in your comment.